Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7

[A.J.M]

I spoke to one of the road works managers at Auchenlee tyres on the 30th of last month as he was in getting a puncture repaired on his 16 plate Ford Ranger pick up truck.

His words were that on the 30th they had done 10 of the 36 concrete pours for the underpass and that the timeframe for having cars using it by Christmas was "fking months out"

So good luck to anyone using that area as you can look to next year for that to be open unless they pull their finger out their arse.

[gofasterrosssco]

jshell said:

Edinburger said:

jshell said:

jimmyjimjim said:

jshell said:

Edinburger said:

look at the work in Orkney on wave power - Scotland's tidal energy resources are calculated to be able to supply 1/3 of Europe's power consumption.

By la-la land lentil-knitters. The cost would be utterly and absolutely prohibitive.

And that's not even including the cost to distribute it to where it needed to go.

Absolutely. We had look at this stuff, and despite the oceans containing a lot of energy, actually converting that into a motive force and quickly enough to generate sufficient electricity is a very, very tough call indeed. A huge, slow lump of mass does not readily get turned into a fast spinning, cost effective gen-set.

But, the loonies lurve the idea!

With the inference being that I'm a "loony"? Lovely.

Tidal power will become a reality. Orkney is already generating significant proportions of its power requirements via tidal (over 75%) and it's still in concept.

You must know best though.

To be frank, I'm a Subsea engineer with experience of operating high voltage generation sets, so I'm not totally without a clue on this.

If you believe the hype, as our SNP masters have, then we're heading for power cuts and bankruptcy.

The phrase remains. 'Subsidy Farmers'.

Yep. I'm actually all for renewables of the right type in the right application (large scale offshore wind, local solar generation) that can be developed towards being cost sustainable. Tidal looks very promising as it ticks many of the boxes with regards to predictability and fairly consistent output.

However, once you look at the detail (as I did, in a previous job), they are have huge technical challenges (i.e. expensive!), not least to do with installation and maintenance, then issues they create for shipping, fishing and getting the power to grid.

I'd be very surprised if Orkney is producing anywhere near 75% power requirements from Tidal - as far as I knew that only just 'test' turbine.. Happy to be proven wrong with a reference / link?

The most viable tidal schemes are really the barrage type, such as the proposal Severn Barrage even though they have huge cost and have their own environmental impact.

And lets not forget, given the purpose of this thread, the huge investment in Scottish renewables over the years, has been bankrolled by the UK energy consumer.. Another reason to remain in the UK. A fact the Green Nats like to ignore..

[A.J.M]

hidetheelephants said:

I know 2/3rds of bugger all about road building, but is that amount of subsidence not more likely to be poor foundations rather than poor quality black stuff laying? That region is like swiss cheese with old mine workings and doing any major construction must be a fking nightmare.

The area is a nightmare for old mining works, the housing development a quarter mile down the road took years to come along as they had to pump countless tons of concrete into the old mine shafts and tunnels.

Doesn't excuse the failings as the area has plenty of history of works so they should have done the foundations deep and proper. Or excuse not sorting the roads properly, i'm only reporting on what the road workers who have been on the jobs are saying.

[malks222]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politic...

the snp don't want to directly tax the rich, but they'll increase the council tax and then use it in other areas ?!?! seems a bit harsh that my council tax is not being spent in the area I live, I guess Edinburgh council could be doing with some of that money as their services are coming under a lot of pressure (roads, bin collections....)

[technodup]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transpo...

It's not like nobody mentioned it before they started ffs. After the parliament debacle it was pretty clear that it would overrun on time and budget and was an expensive solution looking for a problem.

I really think a party/government which genuinely aimed not to spend our money on ste would get a lot of support. A ten year moratorium on big projects, new 'initiatives' and tax increases would suit me, and I doubt anyone would notice much different.

[gofasterrosssco]

Yep, while at the same time blaming predicted Scottish budget cuts on Wastemonster, while they sit on their hands not touching devolved taxes..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-bus...

[glazbagun]

technodup said:

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transpo...

It's not like nobody mentioned it before they started ffs. After the parliament debacle it was pretty clear that it would overrun on time and budget and was an expensive solution looking for a problem.

I really think a party/government which genuinely aimed not to spend our money on ste would get a lot of support. A ten year moratorium on big projects, new 'initiatives' and tax increases would suit me, and I doubt anyone would notice much different.

It really amazes me that the media never ran a high profile campaign to out the councillors behind the trams. They should all have lost their jobs, been banned from every business affected and had an extra tax added to their future incomes as a reminder that they are a bunch of vain imbeciles who have no business spending other peoples money on anything ever again.

[Edinburger]

glazbagun said:

technodup said:

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transpo...

It's not like nobody mentioned it before they started ffs. After the parliament debacle it was pretty clear that it would overrun on time and budget and was an expensive solution looking for a problem.

I really think a party/government which genuinely aimed not to spend our money on ste would get a lot of support. A ten year moratorium on big projects, new 'initiatives' and tax increases would suit me, and I doubt anyone would notice much different.

It really amazes me that the media never ran a high profile campaign to out the councillors behind the trams. They should all have lost their jobs, been banned from every business affected and had an extra tax added to their future incomes as a reminder that they are a bunch of vain imbeciles who have no business spending other peoples money on anything ever again.

I was firmly against the trams when they were being discussed, but in actual fact I was wrong - they're a fantastic enhancement to the city.

[Edinburger]

technodup said:

Obviously not.

Don't worry, it'll be in iPlayer soon.

[r11co]

Edinburger said:

I was firmly against the trams when they were being discussed, but in actual fact I was wrong - they're a fantastic enhancement to the city.

Wow - pure shill.

They cover a route already served by two other modes of public transport and are slow. Fantastic enhancement they are not - they are and always were a pointless vanity project.

The same thing could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost by building an extra station or two along the railway line to the airport and creating some dedicated bus routes.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 13th September 14:43

[Edinburger]

Nanook said:

Edinburger said:

I was firmly against the trams when they were being discussed, but in actual fact I was wrong - they're a fantastic enhancement to the city.

They would be if they actually built it all.

Eh? If they actually built what?!

[Edinburger]

r11co said:

Edinburger said:

I was firmly against the trams when they were being discussed, but in actual fact I was wrong - they're a fantastic enhancement to the city.

Wow - pure shill.

They cover a route already served by two other modes of public transport and are slow. Fantastic enhancement they are not - they are and always were a pointless vanity project.

The same thing could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost by building an extra station or two along the railway line to the airport and creating some dedicated bus routes.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 13th September 14:43

Really?

You've never landed at Edinburgh Airport and had to get somewhere?

[ianrb]

Edinburger said:

r11co said:

Edinburger said:

I was firmly against the trams when they were being discussed, but in actual fact I was wrong - they're a fantastic enhancement to the city.

Wow - pure shill.

They cover a route already served by two other modes of public transport and are slow. Fantastic enhancement they are not - they are and always were a pointless vanity project.

The same thing could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost by building an extra station or two along the railway line to the airport and creating some dedicated bus routes.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 13th September 14:43

Really?

You've never landed at Edinburgh Airport and had to get somewhere?

Lots of times, just get the transfer bus out to the carpark and drive home.

The new train station at Gogar should improve things, but only if they can get a fleet of bendy buses running between there & the terminal building.

[glazbagun]

Nanook said:

Edinburger said:

Eh? If they actually built what?!

All of the lines/routes.

It was supposed to go right to the water at Leith, was it not? As well as several other places that were cut for budget reasons despite them having blown the entire budget 2 times over.

Aye, great job!

And utterly fked the businesses of Leith Walk by digging the place up only to decide that actually, no, they're not going to take it this far after all because we're already spunked £750 MILLION on a tram system that doesn't do anything the bus didn't already do. If it was on budget it would be a waste of money (unlike a train station at Edinburgh Airport- SNP killed that project off, but it would have been great!), but at three quarters of a billion and years of disruption it should be a crime.

[jshell]

Argh! And now the fking Fudds want to reduce the motorways and DC's to 60mph! http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/60mph-lim...

Also, just announced the latest tidal power scheme as a great success - @ THREE times the cost per MWh than the new Hinkley nuclear plant that's seen as prohibitively expensive!

s!

[AC43]

Edinburger said:

r11co said:

Edinburger said:

I was firmly against the trams when they were being discussed, but in actual fact I was wrong - they're a fantastic enhancement to the city.

Wow - pure shill.

They cover a route already served by two other modes of public transport and are slow. Fantastic enhancement they are not - they are and always were a pointless vanity project.

The same thing could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost by building an extra station or two along the railway line to the airport and creating some dedicated bus routes.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 13th September 14:43

Really?

You've never landed at Edinburgh Airport and had to get somewhere?

I fly there on business quite a lot. Tried the tram twice. It was expensive, really slow, roasting hot on a sunny day and I couldn't make any calls.

It doesn't make any sense to me. For that particular journey anyway.

[Cobnapint]

The trams 'look' great, and I like the little bell that rings on them - but that's about it.

They also look pretty empty, and when you look at all the infrastructure that had to be installed - the overhead power lines and supports, the track, signalling, the alterations to road junctions, the tram stops, lighting and ticketing - you think wtf, all that just to move a handful of people around at 25mph.

What's wrong with a bus. No extra infrastructure required, and it can go where it fking likes..!

[Wrathalanche]

Since SNP infrastructure projects seem to be in the firing line, here's something a little bird told me on the back deck of a ship a few months ago:

The MOD did a survey of the rock piles laid under the surface that the new forth crossing has been built on.

Punchline: There's not enough space between them for the new carriers to pass through.

For those who don't know the geography, the two carriers are about a mile upstream, the first due for sea trials next year.

The bridge is also due to open to traffic about the same time.....

[glazbagun]

Wrathalanche said:

Since SNP infrastructure projects seem to be in the firing line, here's something a little bird told me on the back deck of a ship a few months ago:

The MOD did a survey of the rock piles laid under the surface that the new forth crossing has been built on.

Punchline: There's not enough space between them for the new carriers to pass through.

For those who don't know the geography, the two carriers are about a mile upstream, the first due for sea trials next year.

The bridge is also due to open to traffic about the same time.....

That would be some legendary incompetence that would go down beside the Trojans deciding to grab that giant horse the Greeks left behind.

I can't believe it though. "what is the biggest thing that will pass under this bridge" must be one of the first things engineers write on their fag packet. I actually fancy taking a trip to the Forth to see them off. I can't imagine the sight of the Cruisers that were stationed there during WWII!

Trams weren't SNP though.

[jshell]

glazbagun said:

Trams weren't SNP though.

Credit where credit due, the SNP tried to cancel them. It was the rest of the spunkbuckets that forced their vanity project through!