OT Watch power technology

[rbel]

My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually died
and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power technologies
including solar (always a popular subject on this ng!) and kinetic
quartz.

Any comments based on experience gratefully received.
--
rbel

[Phil L]

I thought they stopped making watches years ago when mobile phones were
invented.

[polygonum]

Some years ago my partner wanted a new watch and, eventually settled on a
rather nice Citizen. Looks as good as new and has worked accurately
without battery change in getting on for ten years.

When I wanted a new watch a few years ago, I looked around but ended up
with a Citizen titanium for myself. Accurate. Solid. Reliable. And, within
the world of watches, reasonably priced.

Both use the Eco-Drive system which recharges the internal battery using
light. Neither of us has ever been especially careful about making sure it
is in the sun or otherwise well lit. Neither of us has had a battery go
flat.

The one feature I would have liked is radio-time signal reception. But it
is quite accurate enough without so not a big disappointment.

--
Rod

[The Natural Philosopher]

renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[damdu...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:15:27 +0100, rbel wrote:

>

I've got a solar powered time piece, been dead reliable for the 20
years since I bought it subject to there being enough sunlight around.
Had to fit my own strap but that wasn't difficult.
There is one on ebay at the moment.
http://compare.ebay.co.uk/like/360441983008?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&cbt=y

G.Harman

[Bill]

In message <pvHHr.404971$9s1.2...@fx31.am4>, Phil L
<neverc...@hotmail.com> writes

>I thought they stopped making watches years ago when mobile phones were
invented.

That's the problem with the modern world, style over practicality.

I had a Casio something or other solar charged watch for about 5 years,
then the stupid plastic strap broke. It worked pretty well as a watch
with the multiple alarms I needed at the time. One winter I had to wear
it outside my sleeve for a few days when it started to dim, but
otherwise the watch part was fine.

When it died, I looked at the prices and went for a basic 7-quid Casio.
I get about 2 years from the battery, then replace it with another
watch. The price went up a pound in the last 2-year cycle. That way I
get to replace the strap and the scratched and battered front glass.

I looked inside the last one, but couldn't find anything that looked
like a battery. A son dropped one of these in the Irish Sea when the
tide was in. A few days later we walked out on the sands and he found
it. It still worked.
--
Bill

[S Viemeister]

On 6/30/2012 3:36 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <pvHHr.404971$9s1.2...@fx31.am4>,

> That's about it. I stopped wearing a watch 10 years ago when the strap
> started irritating my skin. Haven't missed it.
>
I keep a watch for travel - airlines frown on mobile phones during flights.

[Bob Eager]

I need to be able to see the time without making it too obvious, and I
need to have it very legible due to sight issues (my eye can't focus on a
digital watch without the help of a lens, and I can't see my audience if
I have a lens!).

I have a 7 year old 'analogue' Timex from Argos; just had one battery
change.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Harry Bloomfield]

I've never liked having to faff about with watches. I bought myself a
Casio titanium, solar powered, 100m watertight and radio controlled
about 7 years ago. It has always been spot on, battery always fully
charged and all I do is wear it, never bother taking it off in the
shower. Battered and looks the worse for wear, but still keeps going.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

[scorched]

"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:timstreater-F75A...@news.individual.net...

> In article <pvHHr.404971$9s1.2...@fx31.am4>,
> "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> That's about it. I stopped wearing a watch 10 years ago when the strap
> started irritating my skin. Haven't missed it.

I wear one every day, I'd feel undressed without it. Mind you, I don't have
a mobile phone permanently attached to my ear.
Cheap and cheerful, a great buy-
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/2534361/Trail/searchtext%3ECASIO.htm

I unusually took an am rush hour train ride some time back. Couldn't believe
how many folks were glued to their mobiles. Most were unaware of whether the
carriage was empty or full.

[Jo Stein]

Den 30.06.2012 20:55, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
> rbel wrote:
>> My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually
>> died and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power
>> technologies including solar (always a popular subject on this
>> ng!) and kinetic quartz.
>>
>> Any comments based on experience gratefully received. -- rbel
>
> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>

Here I found the perfect time keeper:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seiko-astron-the-worlds-first-gps-solar-watch-142635536.html
> Accurate Time, Anywhere On Earth. Once a day, Seiko Astron receives
> the time signal automatically and, on demand, connects to four or
> more of the GPS satellites that orbit the earth, thus pinpointing
> its position and identifying the time zone and the exact time. The
> hands adjust automatically to the correct local time with Atomic
> Clock precision. The new Seiko Astron is solar powered, so never
> needs a battery change, and it also has a perpetual calendar, so the
> date will always be as accurate as the time.
>
Light travels 300 000 km per second. When using four or more GPS
satellites the accuracy in position is a few meters, and then
the time accuracy will be about 5/300 000 000 seconds at the time
of synchronization.
--
jo
"When you measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you
cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of
a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
--William Thomson (Lord Kelvin).

[Tim Lamb]

In message <a593ql...@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
<news...@eager.cx> writes

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:24:26 +0100, Phil L wrote:
>
>> rbel wrote:
>>> My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually died
>>> and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power technologies
>>> including solar (always a popular subject on this ng!) and kinetic
>>> quartz.
>>>
>>> Any comments based on experience gratefully received.
>>
>> I thought they stopped making watches years ago when mobile phones were
>> invented.
>
>I need to be able to see the time without making it too obvious, and I
>need to have it very legible due to sight issues (my eye can't focus on a
>digital watch without the help of a lens, and I can't see my audience if
>I have a lens!).
>
>I have a 7 year old 'analogue' Timex from Argos; just had one battery
>change.

AOL:-)

Backlight has failed but perfect time keeping.

regards
>
>
>

--
Tim Lamb

[Martin Crossley]

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:24:26 +0100, Phil L wrote:
>
>> rbel wrote:
>>> My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually
>>> died and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power
>>> technologies including solar (always a popular subject on this ng!)
>>> and kinetic quartz.
>>>
>>> Any comments based on experience gratefully received.
>>
>> I thought they stopped making watches years ago when mobile phones
>> were invented.
>
> I need to be able to see the time without making it too obvious, and I
> need to have it very legible due to sight issues (my eye can't focus
> on a digital watch without the help of a lens, and I can't see my
> audience if I have a lens!).
>
> I have a 7 year old 'analogue' Timex from Argos; just had one battery
> change.

I have bought a couple of "New Classic Value Brown Color Analog Quartz Mens
Wrist Leather Band Watch S10" from an eBay seller in China at £2.98 each
including postage and find them accurate and very easy to read without my
glasses.
The straps aren't really leather, and fall to bits within a few months, but
the actual watches are great.

[harry]

On Jun 30, 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

As usual you old fart you know nothing.
The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
You lot whinging about oil prices just makes me laugh.You need to GOYA
& do something about it.
Energy costs have all been predictable in the longterm.

[Andy Burns]

harry wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>

> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.

You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, in
other words you're a scrounger.

[Alan]

In message <mqfuu79h4ss3vhucr...@4ax.com>,
rbel@?.?.invalid wrote

Kinetic Quartz has major problems - even the expensive models from well
known manufacturers. The watch is still electric/electronic and the
watch incorporates an offset moving weight attached to a small generator
rather than a battery, but it still needs a storage mechanism.

The charge is stored in a capacitor. This has the same problems as a
battery, especially after a year and left for a week to fully discharge
- never to work again. When checking on the Web I found that it was a
very common problem. The capacitor fails and unlike a battery it isn't a
replaceable component. The fix, after the warranty period, was to send
it back to the 'manufacturer' who would swap out the innards at nearly
the same cost of a new watch.

These days I don't wear a watch as I have a mobile phone in my pocket
but when I did buy watches I always tried to find one where I could
actually read the time :) There are too many designs where the hands
practically disappear when viewed against the other hundreds of mini
dials on the watch face or the design has black hands on a black face
etc. Some watches can only be read by someone with perfect vision and
some can only be read under bright lighting and are somewhat useless in
dim lighting conditions.



--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[charles]

In article <kHc6NrOr...@amac.f2s.com>,

another important thing about a watch is that should tell the right time.
Now that the railways use clocks accurate to the second, it is important to
me that my watch is as accuarate. That's why I have a Casio Waveceptor.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Richard Russell]

On Jun 30, 7:24 pm, "Phil L" <neverchec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I thought they stopped making watches years ago when mobile phones were
> invented.

Our mobile phones (both Motorola Pebl) have useless clocks. They're
hopelessly inaccurate and if the 'auto set' facility is enabled the
time is completely wrong (don't know whether that's the fault of the
phone or the service provider). So even if we always carried our
mobiles (which we don't) they would be no use for telling the time.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

[The Natural Philosopher]

harry wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> rbel wrote:
>>> My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually died
>>> and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power technologies
>>> including solar (always a popular subject on this ng!) and kinetic
>>> quartz.
>>> Any comments based on experience gratefully received.
>>> --
>>> rbel
>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>
>> --
>> To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
>> To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
>> that they know how little is really possible -
>> and how hard it is to achieve it.
>
> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.

so what? You are paid to look pretentious amnd to vote for Clegg thats all.

> You lot whinging about oil prices just makes me laugh.You need to GOYA
> & do something about it.
> Energy costs have all been predictable in the longterm.

And the truth about fraudsters and criminals in government and banking
and keeps coming to light.

We know the eco lobby lies. Its just not been seen to be a criminal act
of fraud yet.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:15:27 +0100, rbel wrote:

>Any comments based on experience gratefully received.

Got several watches smashed in a drawer - they just don't stand up to
wear and tear without a protector strap. Pity, as I liked wearing a
watch, but got totally out of the habit of it years ago.

[Jo Stein]

On 01.07.2012 07:25, harry wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

...

>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>
>> -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who
>> know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is
>> really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.
>
> As usual you old fart you know nothing. The net benefit it brings to
> me is nearly £3500/year. You lot whinging about oil prices just
> makes me laugh.You need to GOYA & do something about it. Energy costs
> have all been predictable in the longterm.
>

Besides beeing a man of few words, The Natural Philosopher do not have
the complete understanding of the topic he mentions here, thus let me
explain.

One big problem that faces mankind today is Global Warming, the second
big problem is green idiots. Because of the second problem we are unable
to solve the first problem.

Why is renewable energy the solution when the problem is dirty coal?
Greens talk about renewables because they are conservative and do not
want any change. While we uses a lot of money on renewables, the
production is still to small to be measured. The solution to the problem
is of course a lot of clean and stable nuclear energy.

Greens are very religious and that is explained very well in my
signature from Michael Crichton, the climat denialist who also was a
medical doctor. Not very well fitted for life as he was an unskilled
medical doctor. He was a smoker that died quite young from cancer
caused by smoking.
--
jo
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity
with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution
as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a
result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.
We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek
salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability
is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic
food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the
right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. -- Michael Crichton

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jo Stein wrote:
> On 01.07.2012 07:25, harry wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>>
>>> -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who
>>> know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is
>>> really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.
>>
>> As usual you old fart you know nothing. The net benefit it brings to
>> me is nearly £3500/year. You lot whinging about oil prices just
>> makes me laugh.You need to GOYA & do something about it. Energy costs
>> have all been predictable in the longterm.
>>
> Besides beeing a man of few words, The Natural Philosopher do not have
> the complete understanding of the topic he mentions here, thus let me
> explain.
>
> One big problem that faces mankind today is Global Warming, the second
> big problem is green idiots. Because of the second problem we are unable
> to solve the first problem.
>

It is not certain that there is a global warming problem. Staitistically
we may be about to enter a cooling phase

The last 50 years of warming is almost certainly not down to man made CO2.

It is unlikely that we can prevent the climate changing at all.

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=48

> Why is renewable energy the solution when the problem is dirty coal?

The problem is not dirty coal. The problem is renewable energy.

> Greens talk about renewables because they are conservative and do not
> want any change. While we uses a lot of money on renewables, the
> production is still to small to be measured. The solution to the problem
> is of course a lot of clean and stable nuclear energy.
>
> Greens are very religious and that is explained very well in my
> signature from Michael Crichton, the climat denialist who also was a
> medical doctor. Not very well fitted for life as he was an unskilled
> medical doctor. He was a smoker that died quite young from cancer
> caused by smoking.

So fucking wwhat?

[harry]

Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.
Who pays for nuclear power stations (and the cleanup after them?)

[Richard Russell]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:46:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=48

The gist of what is quoted there appears to be that the current
conditions, and those forecast for the next few decades, are nothing
unusual when viewed from a geological time perspective. Well of course
they're not: in the distant past sea levels have been tens if not hundreds
of metres above what they are now, and global temperatures have been far
higher too.

But so what? That doesn't mean that the forecast sea-level and
temperature rises for this century are any less 'catastrophic', just
because they've happened before. We need to look at things from a short
time perspective, not a long one, because that's what will matter to us
and our immediate descendants, and that's what we have a chance (even if
only a small one) of influencing.

There is a very telling comment in the quoted article: "Even if
'catastrophic' AGW is correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next
century, if it stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or delayed
the Earth’s transition into cold phase it would be worth it because the
cold phase transition would kill billions of people".

Is he serious? Does he really believe that the catastrophic short-term
consequences are worth putting up with in the interests of delaying
something thousands of years in the future (by which time mankind will
either have annihilated itself or have developed far better technologies
for preventing the "transition into cold phase").

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

[The Natural Philosopher]

At the moment no one.

They are all paid for harry.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Richard Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:46:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=48
>
> The gist of what is quoted there appears to be that the current
> conditions, and those forecast for the next few decades, are nothing
> unusual when viewed from a geological time perspective. Well of course
> they're not: in the distant past sea levels have been tens if not
> hundreds of metres above what they are now, and global temperatures have
> been far higher too.
>
> But so what? That doesn't mean that the forecast sea-level and
> temperature rises for this century are any less 'catastrophic', just
> because they've happened before. We need to look at things from a short
> time perspective, not a long one, because that's what will matter to us
> and our immediate descendants, and that's what we have a chance (even if
> only a small one) of influencing.
>
> There is a very telling comment in the quoted article: "Even if
> 'catastrophic' AGW is correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next
> century, if it stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or
> delayed the Earth’s transition into cold phase it would be worth it
> because the cold phase transition would kill billions of people".
>
> Is he serious?

yes. I assume so.

Does he really believe that the catastrophic short-term
> consequences are worth putting up with in the interests of delaying
> something thousands of years in the future (by which time mankind will
> either have annihilated itself or have developed far better technologies
> for preventing the "transition into cold phase").
>

Er, the cold phase could happen in a few tens of years. Read again. Its
happened before.


The point is that we aren't in a catsrophic and unprecedented period of
warming, and what warming we have had is nothing special or unusual and
greater changes have happened without any need to make everybody feel
guilty and stop burning things.

And wasting money on solutions that don't work to solve a problem we
didn't make is somehow smart?


> Richard.
> http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

[djc]

On 01/07/12 11:30, charles wrote:
> In article <kHc6NrOr...@amac.f2s.com>,
> Alan <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>
>> These days I don't wear a watch as I have a mobile phone in my pocket
>> but when I did buy watches I always tried to find one where I could
>> actually read the time :) There are too many designs where the hands
>> practically disappear when viewed against the other hundreds of mini
>> dials on the watch face or the design has black hands on a black face
>> etc. Some watches can only be read by someone with perfect vision and
>> some can only be read under bright lighting and are somewhat useless in
>> dim lighting conditions.

Which is why I still use my father's military issue Cyma. It's 70 years
old and I've worn it daily for the past 30 years. It gains a minute or
so each day, but it really is no trouble to adjust it when it is wound.

>
> another important thing about a watch is that should tell the right time.
> Now that the railways use clocks accurate to the second, it is important to
> me that my watch is as accuarate. That's why I have a Casio Waveceptor.

Whatever clocks the railway use, that doesn't mean the trains run on time



--
djc

[Rod Speed]

"charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:52a86314...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...

That’s mad. You cant show up for a train anything like that accurately.

> That's why I have a Casio Waveceptor.

I don’t bother with any watch anymore, use the phone when
the time matters and I'm not in the car or the house.

[charles]

It generally does when they leave Waterloo, though

[Mark]

Alan wrote:

> In message <mqfuu79h4ss3vhucr...@4ax.com>,
> rbel@?.?.invalid wrote
>
>

> Kinetic Quartz has major problems - even the expensive models from well
> known manufacturers.
>

> The fix, after the warranty period, was to send
> it back to the 'manufacturer' who would swap out the innards at nearly
> the same cost of a new watch.

Oh newsgroup bullshit
I have replaced the battery/capacitor in my Seiko 5M63
http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_3023-44Z.htm


-

[Rod Speed]

"harry" <harol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4b09a83-aafa-410a...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 1, 10:07 am, Andy Burns <usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>> harry wrote:
>> > The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>
>> > As usual you old fart you know nothing.
>> > The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
>>
>> You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, in
>> other words you're a scrounger.
>
>
> Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.

Fuck all of it doesn't.

> Who pays for nuclear power stations

Those who buy the power they generate, stupid.

> (and the cleanup after them?)

Not necessary. Just fill it with concrete and leave
it with one that's designed right in the first place.

And use the used fuel rods for more nuke fuel.

[Alan]

In message <jsqerd$2uj$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark <ma...@127.0.0.1> wrote

>
>Oh newsgroup bullshit
>I have replaced the battery/capacitor in my Seiko 5M63
>http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_3023-44Z.htm
>

These kits were not available when I scrapped a Seiko Kinetic.

The very fact that these kits now are available proves that the
technology doesn't live up to its original hype. It was advertised as
never having to replace a battery again.

A more reliable technology is probably a watch that needs a new lithium
battery (non rechargeable) every 5/10 years.

[Mark]

well i bought the watch in 2001 and have only replaced the battery once,
but i do wear it every day.


-

[The Natural Philosopher]

Alan wrote:
> In message <jsqerd$2uj$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark <ma...@127.0.0.1> wrote
>
>>
>> Oh newsgroup bullshit
>> I have replaced the battery/capacitor in my Seiko 5M63
>> http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_3023-44Z.htm
>>
>
> These kits were not available when I scrapped a Seiko Kinetic.
>
> The very fact that these kits now are available proves that the
> technology doesn't live up to its original hype. It was advertised as
> never having to replace a battery again.

well thats correct. It was a capacitor, instead!

>
> A more reliable technology is probably a watch that needs a new lithium
> battery (non rechargeable) every 5/10 years.
>
>
>


--

[harry]

On Jul 1, 6:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:
> harry wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 10:07 am, Andy Burns <usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
> >> harry wrote:
> >>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
> >>> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
> >>> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
> >> You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, in
> >> other words you're a scrounger.
>
> > Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.
> > Who pays for nuclear power stations (and the cleanup after them?)
>
> At the moment no one.
>
> They are all paid for harry.
>
> --
> To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
> To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
> that they know how little is really possible -
> and how hard it is to achieve it.

You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
private enterprise and they will want their money back asap. The
government is to insist on up-front payments to de-commision these
power stations in the future so the taxpayer is not left with the
bill.
It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
has to come from somewhere.

You can see right here how prices will rise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclear-power-energy-coalition

Shows how cheap renewable energy actually is.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:43:06 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

> You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
> private enterprise and they will want their money back asap.

No they don't want the rug pulled from under them ona politcal whim, alla
Merkel.

> It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
> has to come from somewhere.

Energy prices are going to rise fullstop. I'd much rather than price rise
paid for a system like the very reliable present one when I can switch on
at anytime of day or night and get power.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Natural Philosopher]

harry wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> harry wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 10:07 am, Andy Burns <usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> harry wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>>>> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
>>>>> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
>>>> You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, in
>>>> other words you're a scrounger.
>>> Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.
>>> Who pays for nuclear power stations (and the cleanup after them?)
>> At the moment no one.
>>
>> They are all paid for harry.
>>
>> --
>> To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
>> To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
>> that they know how little is really possible -
>> and how hard it is to achieve it.
>
> You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
> private enterprise and they will want their money back asap.

No they wont stupid. They -unlike greedy grubbing little shits like you
- will do the job based on standard commercial rates of return.

basically what BETTER investment for a pension fund than a nuclear
power station practically guaranteed to return 7.5% for the next 60
years? and then give the money back you lent them.

The
> government is to insist on up-front payments to de-commision these
> power stations in the future so the taxpayer is not left with the
> bill.

yes, but surprisingly enough if you design them to an taken apart, its
not a huge amount.

> It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
> has to come from somewhere.
>

Er no. It will result in far cheaper electricity than windmills and
solar panels. somewhere in the 6p-8p mark is the best government
estimate. Thats more than gas or caol at the monet but is half te price
of any reneable/gas combination.

> You can see right here how prices will rise.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclear-power-energy-coalition
>
> Shows how cheap renewable energy actually is.

If I want to read blatant lies I don't need to go to the Guardians
reprint of renewable lobby claims. I can sit here and listen to you instead.

[AnthonyL]

+1. I've had mine for about 8 yrs and I delight when being asked
"what time do you make it" in replying "it is xx.yy". I travel a bit
so great just to be able to use on of the other time zones. Regularly
use all the different alarms, time and stop-watch. Just wish the
backlight button was easier to push.

I always buy watches with metal straps - got fed up of the plastic
ones breaking but some of the fabric/nylon type lasted well.


--
AnthonyL

[Rod Speed]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jss852$fld$1...@news.albasani.net...

One that doesn’t have the risk of some fool like Merckel ordering
it to be turned off forever.

>> The government is to insist on up-front payments to de-commision these
>> power stations in the future so the taxpayer is not left with the bill.

> yes, but surprisingly enough if you design them to an taken apart, its not
> a huge amount.

Even cheaper to design them to be filled with concrete and left there.