Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.
No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.
According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.
You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.
You could slice it in one cut to leave 2 y-shaped channels.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
Proximity to water, is the single highest indicator of house price. Build a reservoir, and give the builder 100m above it to build houses and hotels…
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Apologies for this thread, I blame the heat for my bout of writer's block today and the inability to write a proper political/betting piece this afternoon.
I looked no further than the obvious double entendre. I hadn't assumed on TSE's watch, there to be a more sophisticated debate to be discussed.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
It sounds a weird and quite shit proposal. Build more reservoirs. There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. Building them is a real 'Brexit opportunity', but sadly the same sacks of shit who gold plated the EU policies are still running the show. If Liz turns this around, we'll know that we have a winner. The exact same is true at the other end of the spectrum on dredging.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. .
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. .
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Precisely. Utter garbage reason.
We have a massive housing problem, and one of the big factors in that is the high price of land, and we also do not grow enough food to feed the country - it seems illogical that you would want to flood land rather than use it for crops or housing, particularly when there is plenty of water elsewhere in the country.
I've nothing against reservoirs as such. I've enjoyed many a pleasant walk around them, or past them. It just seems obvious to me that land is a scarce commodity in England, so if there's a way to avoid using vast areas of it for a reservoir then that would be a good idea.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. .
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Precisely. Utter garbage reason.
We have a massive housing problem, and one of the big factors in that is the high price of land, and we also do not grow enough food to feed the country - it seems illogical that you would want to flood land rather than use it for crops or housing, particularly when there is plenty of water elsewhere in the country.
I've nothing against reservoirs as such. I've enjoyed many a pleasant walk around them, or past them. It just seems obvious to me that land is a scarce commodity in England, so if there's a way to avoid using vast areas of it for a reservoir then that would be a good idea.
Even if it weren't, would it be better to put the reservoirs in those areas which are poor farmland and thinly inhabited, or in the fertile and populous areas of the south?
Which brings us back to the north of England again, and building a proper water grid.
We don't have a water shortage issue. We have a water distribution issue. Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall. Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys. The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Precisely. Utter garbage reason.
We have a massive housing problem, and one of the big factors in that is the high price of land, and we also do not grow enough food to feed the country - it seems illogical that you would want to flood land rather than use it for crops or housing, particularly when there is plenty of water elsewhere in the country.
I've nothing against reservoirs as such. I've enjoyed many a pleasant walk around them, or past them. It just seems obvious to me that land is a scarce commodity in England, so if there's a way to avoid using vast areas of it for a reservoir then that would be a good idea.
Even if it weren't, would it be better to put the reservoirs in those areas which are poor farmland and thinly inhabited, or in the fertile and populous areas of the south?
Which brings us back to the north of England again, and building a proper water grid.
There are large reservoirs in the Rivington/Anglezarke area north of Bolton. No one wants to live there. And the only farming would be very marginal sheep grazing. It rains quite a lot up there too.
Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.
No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.
According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.
You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.
You could slice it in one cut to leave 2 y-shaped channels.
I suppose you have to define carefully what 'cut' means too. I suspect that is making two cuts at once.
All if the brambles round our way seem to be laden with fruit, including those down the side of our garden. We've just picked a poundand a half of blackberries, with plenty more still to ripen.
Our apple tree is also producing a bumper crop. Unfortunately they aren't very sweet.
The "how its going" bit: Thames Water cuts off half a village from a local (very small) reservoir due to E Coli contamination, and this means that OCC should approve a massive bunded reservoir that won't be built until the mid to late 2040s in preference to a transfer system that could be up and running in 2 years?
And the picture beneath - with the lovely lake in a valley - yeah, right. That looks like a huge bunded reservoir. Where are the mountains here?
I mean, I get the dislike of NIMBYs but when someone like him is talking from utter ignorance on something, it doesn't half damage their case on other things.
Especially when the proposal would involve being fenced off by deer fences and "The full removal of all terrestrial recreational activities or aquatic recreational activities" may be required to reduce the Invasive Not Native Species contamination risk to a low level.
Got to conclude with that picture that he's being deliberately misleading if he knows anything about the proposal.
"The right is odious in multiple ways. Undeniable. But at least it makes a vague, often feeble attempt to support free speech. I can’t remember the last time the right tried to cancel a comedy show at the Fringe or similar venues. Probably the Mary Whitehouse era, actually."
That may be true. I don't know. But it does not really support free speech does it.
Note the way that criticism of government policy is subtly conflated into "extremism". If this is followed through then someone like me who has criticised government policy on fraud, financial regulation and criminal justice, for instance, would be banned as a speaker. It is absurd.
The right - quite as much as the left - need to be taught the critical importance and value of these words of J S Mill -
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..."
All if the brambles round our way seem to be laden with fruit, including those down the side of our garden. We've just picked a poundand a half of blackberries, with plenty more still to ripen.
Our apple tree is also producing a bumper crop. Unfortunately they aren't very sweet.
Record year for the bramble running along our garden wall. I'm in heaven. Lord knows how much that many blackberries would cost from a supermarket.
The "how its going" bit: Thames Water cuts off half a village from a local (very small) reservoir due to E Coli contamination, and this means that OCC should approve a massive bunded reservoir that won't be built until the mid to late 2040s in preference to a transfer system that could be up and running in 2 years?
And the picture beneath - with the lovely lake in a valley - yeah, right. That looks like a huge bunded reservoir. Where are the mountains here?
I mean, I get the dislike of NIMBYs but when someone like him is talking from utter ignorance on something, it doesn't half damage their case on other things.
Especially when the proposal would involve being fenced off by deer fences and "The full removal of all terrestrial recreational activities or aquatic recreational activities" may be required to reduce the Invasive Not Native Species contamination risk to a low level.
Got to conclude with that picture that he's being deliberately misleading if he knows anything about the proposal.
Thank you for the correction. I should have been suspicious of the source of this tweet,
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Precisely. Utter garbage reason.
We have a massive housing problem, and one of the big factors in that is the high price of land, and we also do not grow enough food to feed the country - it seems illogical that you would want to flood land rather than use it for crops or housing, particularly when there is plenty of water elsewhere in the country.
I've nothing against reservoirs as such. I've enjoyed many a pleasant walk around them, or past them. It just seems obvious to me that land is a scarce commodity in England, so if there's a way to avoid using vast areas of it for a reservoir then that would be a good idea.
You can build reservoirs where you could never build houses or farm, because they enhance the landscape.
The "how its going" bit: Thames Water cuts off half a village from a local (very small) reservoir due to E Coli contamination, and this means that OCC should approve a massive bunded reservoir that won't be built until the mid to late 2040s in preference to a transfer system that could be up and running in 2 years?
And the picture beneath - with the lovely lake in a valley - yeah, right. That looks like a huge bunded reservoir. Where are the mountains here?
I mean, I get the dislike of NIMBYs but when someone like him is talking from utter ignorance on something, it doesn't half damage their case on other things.
Especially when the proposal would involve being fenced off by deer fences and "The full removal of all terrestrial recreational activities or aquatic recreational activities" may be required to reduce the Invasive Not Native Species contamination risk to a low level.
Got to conclude with that picture that he's being deliberately misleading if he knows anything about the proposal.
Thank you for the correction. I should have been suspicious of the source of this tweet,
I may have the zeal of the convert. I live near the proposed location, and I was originally in favour. Unfortunately, that turned out to be simply a case of a mental jump from "Well, if it's needed..." and "Hey, reservoirs are kind of nice. Valleys, mountains, lakes..."
Then I looked at it all in depth and found out that the principal driver seemed to be commercial (getting a hoarded store to sell on to Affinity Water and Southern Water, and a commercial asset worth billions paid for by someone else). The fact that they were refusing to consider the Severn-Thames Transfer link (far cheaper, FAR quicker, using proven technology, resistant to multi-region droughts, new water into a water-stressed region) because it looked to make their reservoir proposal redundant was a big clue.
They wanted to punt the STT into the 2080s or beyond!
Meanwhile, the reservoir proposal had huge drawbacks they forgot to mention (and they redacted out almost all the Environmental Assessment they presented to the regulator "on commercial grounds"!), and the scale of it was staggering (Farmoor reservoir and any other bunded reservoir in the UK are ponds compared to this one's lake).
150,000,000 tonnes flexing up and down on the clay floor of the Vale within a few hundred metres of an arterial road (the A34) and within a few hundred metres of villages and towns. Floods in Abingdon and surrounding villages regularly. Fogs generated over this water mass and sweeping down over the A34. Occasional methane outgassing.
And the numbers don't add up - in a prolonged drought, it would run down to a level where algae bloom would form and cause E coli and other issues (cf that village).
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
It sounds a weird and quite shit proposal. Build more reservoirs. There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. Building them is a real 'Brexit opportunity', but sadly the same sacks of shit who gold plated the EU policies are still running the show. If Liz turns this around, we'll know that we have a winner. The exact same is true at the other end of the spectrum on dredging.
That's not strictly true: the EU has been a barrier to building new reservoirs because they have mandated a ridiculous amount of red tape arrive environmental impact.
All if the brambles round our way seem to be laden with fruit, including those down the side of our garden. We've just picked a poundand a half of blackberries, with plenty more still to ripen.
Our apple tree is also producing a bumper crop. Unfortunately they aren't very sweet.
My apple trees look to be good, as do the trad pears. Soft fruit has been weak, as I have not been watering it for saving reasons. Lots of tomatoes.
I have to investigate the Himalayan Giant blackberry, and the (now less) trained fruit left behind by mum.
My prioity is pressure washing solar panels, which really need it.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Precisely. Utter garbage reason.
We have a massive housing problem, and one of the big factors in that is the high price of land, and we also do not grow enough food to feed the country - it seems illogical that you would want to flood land rather than use it for crops or housing, particularly when there is plenty of water elsewhere in the country.
I've nothing against reservoirs as such. I've enjoyed many a pleasant walk around them, or past them. It just seems obvious to me that land is a scarce commodity in England, so if there's a way to avoid using vast areas of it for a reservoir then that would be a good idea.
Even if it weren't, would it be better to put the reservoirs in those areas which are poor farmland and thinly inhabited, or in the fertile and populous areas of the south?
Which brings us back to the north of England again, and building a proper water grid.
As long as it isn't a Llyn Efyrnwy type project, where the locals see no benefit.
There's a reason the Welsh habitually stop to add a little more volume each time they pass.
National Planning Policy is largely about overcoming NIMBY objections from local councils (at least until the government weakens it to fend off LDs in the shires) so that Inspectors can approve instead.
NIMBYism delays, it doesn't prevent, unless government policy is still weak in that area. Or the reasons are stronger than typical NIMBY, which is characterised by spurious and phony reasoning.
Though to be fair, resevoirs are pretty big projects, there are more likely to be valid objections than to, say, 50 houses on the edge of a town of 5000 and the like.
We don't have a water shortage issue. We have a water distribution issue. Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall. Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys. The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
The trouble is that it's extremely political.
The mountains and valleys tend to be in Wales and Scotland and flooding economically deprived Celtic areas - , that tend to possess some stunning scenery on top - to feed resource-hungry and affluent South-East England is, well, unpopular.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. .
Why would they want to promote that idea?
They don't: indeed a two second Google will find a whole bunch of EU bumpf about how the bloc is too dependent on groundwater extraction and needs to improve water collection (i.e reservoirs).
Where luckyguy is correct, however, is that the EU had historically mandated a lot of "environment impact assessment" rules that have had the effect of discouraging new reservoirs.
Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.
No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.
According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.
You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.
You could slice it in one cut to leave 2 y-shaped channels.
I suppose you have to define carefully what 'cut' means too. I suspect that is making two cuts at once.
I remember now why I did Engineering...
How is one slice with a knife 2 cuts? The knife would never leave contact with the Y and would be straight and uninterrupted.
We don't have a water shortage issue. We have a water distribution issue. Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall. Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys. The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
The trouble is that it's extremely political.
The mountains and valleys tend to be in Wales and Scotland and flooding economically deprived Celtic areas - , that tend to possess some stunning scenery on top - to feed resource-hungry and affluent South-East England is, well, unpopular.
Very true.
The bit that gets my hackles up is that the reservoirs already in operation in those areas have water that could feed far wider areas.
I've noticed that United Utilities (in Cumbria, with over 118 sizeable reservoirs) are very favourably inclined to the proposal. As well they might be, but given that they have the water there, it seems foolish not to use it. Those valleys are already flooded and those reservoirs are already built.
I wonder if there's scope for the money for that water to flow into those areas (rather than just the water companies involved).
All if the brambles round our way seem to be laden with fruit, including those down the side of our garden. We've just picked a poundand a half of blackberries, with plenty more still to ripen.
Our apple tree is also producing a bumper crop. Unfortunately they aren't very sweet.
Record year for the bramble running along our garden wall. I'm in heaven. Lord knows how much that many blackberries would cost from a supermarket.
Even wholesale frozen they will run at about £5-6 per kilogram. I will need to buy some this year.
(Apologies for the derail: I've spent altogether too many hours going through the submitted plans and documentation on this particular proposal. I could bore for Britain on it and arguably may already have done so).
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
Secondly, an acknowledgement that the Australian government implemented a lot of environmental legislation that prevented mining runoff in Queensland from poisoning the reef.
Secondly, an acknowledgement that the Australian government implemented a lot of environmental legislation that prevented mining runoff in Queensland from poisoning the reef.
Indeed. Whilst plenty of claims might have been shown not to have happened, it doesn't automatically follow the claims were alarmist (though I do think we get some of that still), if the reason they did not happen was because people and governments did something about it. Especially if those mad at alarmism are suggesting doing nothing because it is all fine, making the same error as XR extremists who think nothing has been achieved ever and we're all going to die in 5 years or whatever.
(Apologies for the derail: I've spent altogether too many hours going through the submitted plans and documentation on this particular proposal. I could bore for Britain on it and arguably may already have done so).
No, don't apologise - it has been most interesting.
It'd be hard to ask, say, the Welsh or the Geordies to flood the many valleys to feed a canal, and for the folk en route to have a canal built through their gardens etc., if the SE can't even be arsed to stop leaks and to implement the STT (and where does the Severn come from?).
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
It’s yet more of the social media politics, that makes it increasingly unlikely that anyone of genuine talent will ever again run for high office.
We don't have a water shortage issue. We have a water distribution issue. Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall. Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys. The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
The trouble is that it's extremely political.
The mountains and valleys tend to be in Wales and Scotland and flooding economically deprived Celtic areas - , that tend to possess some stunning scenery on top - to feed resource-hungry and affluent South-East England is, well, unpopular.
Very true.
The bit that gets my hackles up is that the reservoirs already in operation in those areas have water that could feed far wider areas.
I've noticed that United Utilities (in Cumbria, with over 118 sizeable reservoirs) are very favourably inclined to the proposal. As well they might be, but given that they have the water there, it seems foolish not to use it. Those valleys are already flooded and those reservoirs are already built.
I wonder if there's scope for the money for that water to flow into those areas (rather than just the water companies involved).
Indeed. And that could/should be made a requirement for any new such developments. Should be a win-win for supplying and receiving regions.
While we are philosophising over the nature of holes, over on the Rail Forums they are debating whether being in Bath and North Somerset constitutes being in Somerset.
Those folk can certainly give the PB pedants a run for their money!
Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.
A hole in a wall can have any opening to depth ratio if you know it comes out the other side.
If you know it doesn't come out the other side, then too big an opening to depth ratio stops it being a hole, but a very small opening to depth ratio is fine.
A grave is certainly a kind of hole in the ground.
While we are philosophising over the nature of holes, over on the Rail Forums they are debating whether being in Bath and North Somerset constitutes being in Somerset.
Those folk can certainly give the PB pedants a run for their money!
What a peculiar bunch, of course it does! Even if BANES didn't have NES in its title, ceremonial counties are still a thing, thank goodness.
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
You’re thinking about it more than I did. I’m not bothered whether it gets reported here or not, or whether that constitutes a conspiracy of silence or not. I just thought it was funny. I’m glad he’s getting shit off randoms. He deserves it.
lets define a hole - a hole is something that gets bigger the more you take out of it
Question:
If you heat up a brass ring will the hole in the middle get bigger or smaller?
Bigger. The ring is essentially a series of very short straight elements, each of which will expand along its length.
On reflection, I'm wondering if that analysis is correct. But expansion of a rectangular block along any rectilinear axis is proportional to the length across which it expands. Crudely, the ring could be regarded as, if cut and straightened, a straight bar which will expand more along its length than across its width. So, intuitively, if one thinks of the ring as two identical semicircles in apposition, the heating will push out the mating faces more than the inner surface at 90 degrees to those junctions pushes inwards.
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
Furthermore the same type of people were saying that Raab had to step in because Johnson was some kind of Trump-style threat to democracy and would be plotting a 'coup'. Now they're complaining that Johnson isn't in Number 10.
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
You’re thinking about it more than I did. I’m not bothered whether it gets reported here or not, or whether that constitutes a conspiracy of silence or not. I just thought it was funny. I’m glad he’s getting shit off randoms. He deserves it.
I know that's why you showed it, and it is funny he gets heckled in that way, but the tweeter couldn't contain themselves to just report a funny incident, they had to imply something strange about it not being shown in the UK, which adds a certain needy, desperate element which isn't necessary when its already funny.
While we are philosophising over the nature of holes, over on the Rail Forums they are debating whether being in Bath and North Somerset constitutes being in Somerset.
Those folk can certainly give the PB pedants a run for their money!
What a peculiar bunch, of course it does! Even if BANES didn't have NES in its title, ceremonial counties are still a thing, thank goodness.
And the Somerset and Dorset Rly terminus is in Bath (now a Sainsburys IIRC, though I was more interested in the building than the grocery when I visited).
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
Furthermore the same type of people were saying that Raab had to step in because Johnson was some kind of Trump-style threat to democracy and would be plotting a 'coup'. Now they're complaining that Johnson isn't in Number 10.
I'd have rather he went immediately, but people do rather overdo the worry about what is technically possible. See that rather ridiculous episode overanalysing the Conservative constitution on the oft seen misapprehension that procedural rules are supposed to be able to in black and white cover every potential scenario, when the general nature of the rules made it abundantly clear that if he wanted to play that kind of game (about whether he had resigned for example) the rules gave appropriate power to the 1922 to deal with it.
Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.
No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.
According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.
You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.
You could slice it in one cut to leave 2 y-shaped channels.
I suppose you have to define carefully what 'cut' means too. I suspect that is making two cuts at once.
I remember now why I did Engineering...
How is one slice with a knife 2 cuts? The knife would never leave contact with the Y and would be straight and uninterrupted.
If it doesn't leave contact then for a positive amount of time it has to be cutting in two places simultaneously.
lets define a hole - a hole is something that gets bigger the more you take out of it
Question:
If you heat up a brass ring will the hole in the middle get bigger or smaller?
Bigger. The ring is essentially a series of very short straight elements, each of which will expand along its length.
On reflection, I'm wondering if that analysis is correct. But expansion of a rectangular block along any rectilinear axis is proportional to the length across which it expands. Crudely, the ring could be regarded as, if cut and straightened, a straight bar which will expand more along its length than across its width. So, intuitively, if one thinks of the ring as two identical semicircles in apposition, the heating will push out the mating faces more than the inner surface at 90 degrees to those junctions pushes inwards.
My *guess* would be the inner hole would get bigger, for the reason given above. But if we use steel as a material instead of brass, then railway (*) tyres are heated up, placed over the wheel, then they tighten as they shrink. Therefore when hot the inner hole is larger than when it is cooler.
The same thing is used for many other mechanisms as well.
On the specific issue of the straw, if you regard it as a single object, then it can only objectively have one hole; but you could also perceive the straw it in a way that there are two holes, one at either end. I don't think either of these answers are wrong in a 2+2= 5 way.
lets define a hole - a hole is something that gets bigger the more you take out of it
Question:
If you heat up a brass ring will the hole in the middle get bigger or smaller?
Bigger. The ring is essentially a series of very short straight elements, each of which will expand along its length.
On reflection, I'm wondering if that analysis is correct. But expansion of a rectangular block along any rectilinear axis is proportional to the length across which it expands. Crudely, the ring could be regarded as, if cut and straightened, a straight bar which will expand more along its length than across its width. So, intuitively, if one thinks of the ring as two identical semicircles in apposition, the heating will push out the mating faces more than the inner surface at 90 degrees to those junctions pushes inwards.
My *guess* would be the inner hole would get bigger, for the reason given above. But if we use steel as a material instead of brass, then railway (*) tyres are heated up, placed over the wheel, then they tighten as they shrink. Therefore when hot the inner hole is larger than when it is cooler.
The same thing is used for many other mechanisms as well.
(*) I had to bring railways into this, didn't I?
Excellent empirical confirmation. I've just been reading about that very thing (in "How Steam Locomotives Really Work") and it had not occurred to me to think of that!
On the specific issue of the straw, if you regard it as a single object, then it can only objectively have one hole; but you could also perceive the straw it in a way that there are two holes, one at either end. I don't think either of these answers are wrong in a 2+2= 5 way.
As it has no obvious top or bottom and can be used either way round, it must have a hole at each end, rather than a single hole running from one to the other.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
I'd say it's total BS. Distraction tactics for Nimbies.
Having crippled HS2 to save £18bn and keep people in their aeroplanes and freight on the roads, some anon chinless wonder thinks they can pull £14bn (cost of the Coutour Canal a decade ago) out of thin air to build a route to Kielder Water. Current claimed cost would be more like £20-25bn. Final cost more like £50, perhaps?
The entire max capacity of Kielder Water is 199M m3, which is the same as Rutland Water plus Graffham Water within 10%. The forecast capacity of the Abingdon setup, for which property purchases have been happening for decades, is about 75% of Kielder Water afaics, and is currently costed (2018) at approx £1.5bn.
The economics are challenging to an extent that Stalin would blink.
From another angle Thames Water put out 2.4bn l of water per day, and leak approx 600m l/day - a number down from 700m l/day.
They are committed to a further 20% reduction by 2030.
lets define a hole - a hole is something that gets bigger the more you take out of it
Question:
If you heat up a brass ring will the hole in the middle get bigger or smaller?
Bigger. The ring is essentially a series of very short straight elements, each of which will expand along its length.
On reflection, I'm wondering if that analysis is correct. But expansion of a rectangular block along any rectilinear axis is proportional to the length across which it expands. Crudely, the ring could be regarded as, if cut and straightened, a straight bar which will expand more along its length than across its width. So, intuitively, if one thinks of the ring as two identical semicircles in apposition, the heating will push out the mating faces more than the inner surface at 90 degrees to those junctions pushes inwards.
My *guess* would be the inner hole would get bigger, for the reason given above. But if we use steel as a material instead of brass, then railway (*) tyres are heated up, placed over the wheel, then they tighten as they shrink. Therefore when hot the inner hole is larger than when it is cooler.
The same thing is used for many other mechanisms as well.
(*) I had to bring railways into this, didn't I?
Excellent empirical confirmation. I've just been reading about that very thing (in "How Steam Locomotives Really Work") and it had not occurred to me to think of that!
Not a ring, but if your want to loosen a tight-fitting metal lid on a jar just pour some just-boiled water on it. The metal expand more than the glass and off it comes.
I have worked out the GREAT BORIS JOHNSON GREEK HOLIDAY MYSTERY
He's not staying in Nea Makri. It's just a town on the road from Athens Airport to his dad's gaff in Horto, avoiding traffic and also taking in the Marathon Museum (which classicist Boris would find interesting)
On the specific issue of the straw, if you regard it as a single object, then it can only objectively have one hole; but you could also perceive the straw it in a way that there are two holes, one at either end. I don't think either of these answers are wrong in a 2+2= 5 way.
As it has no obvious top or bottom and can be used either way round, it must have a hole at each end, rather than a single hole running from one to the other.
Perhaps the hole has two rims that you can't distinguish between.
I have worked out the GREAT BORIS JOHNSON GREEK HOLIDAY MYSTERY
He's not staying in Nea Makri. It's just a town on the road from Athens Airport to his dad's gaff in Horto, avoiding traffic and also taking in the Marathon Museum (which classicist Boris would find interesting)
(Apologies for the derail: I've spent altogether too many hours going through the submitted plans and documentation on this particular proposal. I could bore for Britain on it and arguably may already have done so).
No, don't apologise - it has been most interesting.
It'd be hard to ask, say, the Welsh or the Geordies to flood the many valleys to feed a canal, and for the folk en route to have a canal built through their gardens etc., if the SE can't even be arsed to stop leaks and to implement the STT (and where does the Severn come from?).
I can answer that!
The STT involves a request to United Utilities to release the water. The first port of call is Lake Vyrnwy, but there are lots of other existing reservoirs that can be called on if they want to hold the water in Vyrnwy.
This is released into the Severn and flows down river.
The STT then abstracts exactly that same amount of water - either into a new pipeline or into a restored canal under the Cotswolds Canal Trust (who absolutely love the proposal). No new canals need to be built; the work is solely new pipelines.
(As an aside, it might theoretically help in times when the Severn floods and the Thames is fine, by directing some of the water towards the Thames).
Really good Summer doldrums question from YouGov. Trust TSE to turn it up.
Mathematicians might say that doughnuts and straws are topologically equivalent.
Similarly (sexist warning---delicate ones look away!), a mathematician might say that if you stepwise halve the distance from a gorgeous woman you would never get there ("converge"), but a practical bloke would say that you'd get close enough.
Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.
A hole in a wall can have any opening to depth ratio if you know it comes out the other side.
If you know it doesn't come out the other side, then too big an opening to depth ratio stops it being a hole, but a very small opening to depth ratio is fine.
A grave is certainly a kind of hole in the ground.
A hole in the wall has to dispense money to qualify.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. .
The above is only a related document, but if you can read and understand the content, it's quite clear.
The EU sought to clamp down on new water infrastructure, in favour of making people pay more for water, and scaring them about its scarcity.
'National priorities can also be counterproductive in promoting additional water supply infrastructure as the primary option, going against the logic of the water hierarchy and the need to support water-saving and efficiency measures in the first place. It continues to be essential to ensure that the allocation of funding is sufficiently conditional on independent and ex-ante evidence of full utilisation of water savings and efficiency, effective water pricing policy and metering, minimum performance of public water supply networks or recovery of the costs of projects by the water users concerned. National support measures must also fully respect State aid rules where applicable.'
'In regions where all prevention measures have been implemented according to the water hierarchy (from water saving to water pricing policy and alternative solutions) and taking due account of the cost-benefit dimension, and where demand still exceeds water availability, additional water supply infrastructure can in some circumstances be identified as a possible other way of mitigating the impacts of severe drought.
There are several possible ways of developing additional water infrastructures, such as storage of surface or ground waters, water transfers, or use of alternative sources.'
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
I'd say it's total BS. Distraction tactics for Nimbies.
Having crippled HS2 to save £18bn and keep people in their aeroplanes and freight on the roads, some anon chinless wonder thinks they can pull £14bn (cost of the Coutour Canal a decade ago) out of thin air to build a route to Kielder Water. Current claimed cost would be more like £20-25bn. Final cost more like £50, perhaps?
The entire max capacity of Kielder Water is 199M m3, which is the same as Rutland Water plus Graffham Water within 10%. The forecast capacity of the Abingdon setup, for which property purchases have been happening for decades, is about 75% of Kielder Water afaics, and is currently costed (2018) at approx £1.5bn.
The economics are challenging to an extent that Stalin would blink.
From another angle Thames Water put out 2.4bn l of water per day, and leak approx 600m l/day - a number down from 700m l/day.
They are committed to a further 20% reduction by 2030.
I just don't see a "canal" as a credible option.
And yet it is already being done. Anglian Water - to their great credit - have spent the last few years planning and constructing a large main to transfer water from the north of their region to the south. Construction is going on right now in the fields around my village. And very well planned and thought out it is as well. They have held close discussions with all communities along the route and have actively replanned sections to avoid areas of archaeological, natural or social concern.
The idea that this cannot be done just shows both a lack of imagination and realism. It is already happening and more will be done.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
Land in England, particularly the South of England, is pretty expensive. Flooding more of it to create more reservoirs doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of land. Similarly, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and desalination is ruinously energy-intensive. This also does not seem to be an optimal response. By contrast, there seems to be more than enough water in the north and the west of the island, so moving it about would seem like a logical approach - assuming you cannot convince people living in the south to move themselves to the water.
I don’t accept that it is hard to build new reservoirs. If it’s done sympathetically it’s just a nice lake and no one can sensibly object, even in the centre of the green belt where nothing else can be built.
Rutland Water is very nice indeed.
It sounds a weird and quite shit proposal. Build more reservoirs. There has been a quite deliberate policy of not building them, due to EU regulations seeking to promote the idea of water scarcity. Building them is a real 'Brexit opportunity', but sadly the same sacks of shit who gold plated the EU policies are still running the show. If Liz turns this around, we'll know that we have a winner. The exact same is true at the other end of the spectrum on dredging.
That's not strictly true: the EU has been a barrier to building new reservoirs because they have mandated a ridiculous amount of red tape arrive environmental impact.
We don't have a water shortage issue. We have a water distribution issue. Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall. Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys. The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
I'd be quite interested in your thoughts on the economic costs, @Andy_Cooke . It does seem very challenging.
I'd be interested in a comparison of the * of embankment of embanked reservoirs.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
I'd say it's total BS. Distraction tactics for Nimbies.
Having crippled HS2 to save £18bn and keep people in their aeroplanes and freight on the roads, some anon chinless wonder thinks they can pull £14bn (cost of the Coutour Canal a decade ago) out of thin air to build a route to Kielder Water. Current claimed cost would be more like £20-25bn. Final cost more like £50, perhaps?
The entire max capacity of Kielder Water is 199M m3, which is the same as Rutland Water plus Graffham Water within 10%. The forecast capacity of the Abingdon setup, for which property purchases have been happening for decades, is about 75% of Kielder Water afaics, and is currently costed (2018) at approx £1.5bn.
The economics are challenging to an extent that Stalin would blink.
From another angle Thames Water put out 2.4bn l of water per day, and leak approx 600m l/day - a number down from 700m l/day.
They are committed to a further 20% reduction by 2030.
I just don't see a "canal" as a credible option.
And yet it is already being done. Anglian Water - to their great credit - have spent the last few years planning and constructing a large main to transfer water from the north of their region to the south. Construction is going on right now in the fields around my village. And very well planned and thought out it is as well. They have held close discussions with all communities along the route and have actively replanned sections to avoid areas of archaeological, natural or social concern.
The idea that this cannot be done just shows both a lack of imagination and realism. It is already happening and more will be done.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
I'd say it's total BS. Distraction tactics for Nimbies.
Having crippled HS2 to save £18bn and keep people in their aeroplanes and freight on the roads, some anon chinless wonder thinks they can pull £14bn (cost of the Coutour Canal a decade ago) out of thin air to build a route to Kielder Water. Current claimed cost would be more like £20-25bn. Final cost more like £50, perhaps?
The entire max capacity of Kielder Water is 199M m3, which is the same as Rutland Water plus Graffham Water within 10%. The forecast capacity of the Abingdon setup, for which property purchases have been happening for decades, is about 75% of Kielder Water afaics, and is currently costed (2018) at approx £1.5bn.
The economics are challenging to an extent that Stalin would blink.
From another angle Thames Water put out 2.4bn l of water per day, and leak approx 600m l/day - a number down from 700m l/day.
They are committed to a further 20% reduction by 2030.
I just don't see a "canal" as a credible option.
And yet it is already being done. Anglian Water - to their great credit - have spent the last few years planning and constructing a large main to transfer water from the north of their region to the south. Construction is going on right now in the fields around my village. And very well planned and thought out it is as well. They have held close discussions with all communities along the route and have actively replanned sections to avoid areas of archaeological, natural or social concern.
The idea that this cannot be done just shows both a lack of imagination and realism. It is already happening and more will be done.
Oh and it has bugger all to do with Boris and his ideas. Anglian Water are doing it because it makes commercial and practical sense.
That's rather different from a single mega project costing 10 to 20 times more than a similarly sized local water storage facility to the one that will be accessed, which I'd suggest is the issue with the "Great Contour Canal".
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
Furthermore the same type of people were saying that Raab had to step in because Johnson was some kind of Trump-style threat to democracy and would be plotting a 'coup'. Now they're complaining that Johnson isn't in Number 10.
We don't have a water shortage issue. We have a water distribution issue. Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall. Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys. The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
What is your measure of 'average rainfall', and how far beneath 'average rainfall' do you deem the South East of England to be? Having grown up there, it didn't seem to be particularly below average.
Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.
No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.
According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.
You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.
You could slice it in one cut to leave 2 y-shaped channels.
I suppose you have to define carefully what 'cut' means too. I suspect that is making two cuts at once.
I remember now why I did Engineering...
How is one slice with a knife 2 cuts? The knife would never leave contact with the Y and would be straight and uninterrupted.
If it doesn't leave contact then for a positive amount of time it has to be cutting in two places simultaneously.
Yes. So do you count that as 2 cuts or 1? I'd say 1. If you slice a bagel in half then during the middle phase you are cutting it in 2 places at once. Is that 2 cuts?
A good friend of ours works on the core 3D geometry software that is used by CAD/CAM packages. The maths behind some of the stuff they do is amazingly complex. As a simplish example, imagine modelling two spheres that touch (sphere-sphere intersection). Spheres are fairly simple; but the circle formed by that join is apparently difficult to model. And that was a *simple* case.
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
It’s yet more of the social media politics, that makes it increasingly unlikely that anyone of genuine talent will ever again run for high office.
Never mind even running for high office. I think it’s becoming less attractive to even be a senior government official because the public profile and hatred isn’t compensated for in cash. Talent will move to the private sector and academia where privacy is better protected. I fear we’re moving to low quality civil servants actually on the payroll, heavily supported by consultancies containing the staff they once used to employ. We might be there already.
Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?
I'd say it's total BS. Distraction tactics for Nimbies.
Having crippled HS2 to save £18bn and keep people in their aeroplanes and freight on the roads, some anon chinless wonder thinks they can pull £14bn (cost of the Coutour Canal a decade ago) out of thin air to build a route to Kielder Water. Current claimed cost would be more like £20-25bn. Final cost more like £50, perhaps?
The entire max capacity of Kielder Water is 199M m3, which is the same as Rutland Water plus Graffham Water within 10%. The forecast capacity of the Abingdon setup, for which property purchases have been happening for decades, is about 75% of Kielder Water afaics, and is currently costed (2018) at approx £1.5bn.
The economics are challenging to an extent that Stalin would blink.
From another angle Thames Water put out 2.4bn l of water per day, and leak approx 600m l/day - a number down from 700m l/day.
They are committed to a further 20% reduction by 2030.
I just don't see a "canal" as a credible option.
And yet it is already being done. Anglian Water - to their great credit - have spent the last few years planning and constructing a large main to transfer water from the north of their region to the south. Construction is going on right now in the fields around my village. And very well planned and thought out it is as well. They have held close discussions with all communities along the route and have actively replanned sections to avoid areas of archaeological, natural or social concern.
The idea that this cannot be done just shows both a lack of imagination and realism. It is already happening and more will be done.
I find the 'X won't be shown, of course!' style posturing really lame, particularly if it is trying to imply some kind of conspiracy of silence.
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
Found the original tweet for this and I'm going to file it under "didn't happen". All the replies/quote tweets are gullible FBPEs and Scot Nats tagging the BBC, ITV, Sky, C4 News etc demanding it be covered but there's no actual video of what's claimed anywhere on the internet.
I have worked out the GREAT BORIS JOHNSON GREEK HOLIDAY MYSTERY
He's not staying in Nea Makri. It's just a town on the road from Athens Airport to his dad's gaff in Horto, avoiding traffic and also taking in the Marathon Museum (which classicist Boris would find interesting)
Comments
If you heat up a brass ring will the hole in the middle get bigger or smaller?
I've nothing against reservoirs as such. I've enjoyed many a pleasant walk around them, or past them. It just seems obvious to me that land is a scarce commodity in England, so if there's a way to avoid using vast areas of it for a reservoir then that would be a good idea.
Which brings us back to the north of England again, and building a proper water grid.
Part of the island has a very much above average rainfall.
Part of the island has a very much below average rainfall (6:1 ration between the first and second)
The part of the island with above average rainfall has mountains and valleys.
The part without does not.
Transferring water from the bit with plentiful water to the water-stressed bit seems eminently sensible. The Romans knew the principle and followed it; it's hardly brand new.
Building reservoirs in the flat and dry bit requires building up huge bunds. The proposals tend to go absurd (building bunded reservoirs way beyond the scope of any built before in this country), involve causing regular floods to existing towns by building on floodplains (as that's pretty much the only unbuilt area large enough) and causing considerable other damage.
And staying totally reliant on a single water source (eg the Thames) to refill it. A prolonged drought affecting a single river in this country would screw it all up. Multi-region droughts affecting the entire country are far rarer than single-region droughts affecting (for example) the water-scarce South East.
And its far quicker and cheaper to build a transfer system than build (up) a reservoir with 80' high walls extending for the length of the perimeter of a small or medium sized town. And then spend a couple or three years filling it from a river (without over-abstracting, and relying on said river having good years).
https://twitter.com/Paul_SLG/status/1557454106184278016
No one wants to live there. And the only farming would be very marginal sheep grazing.
It rains quite a lot up there too.
I remember now why I did Engineering...
All if the brambles round our way seem to be laden with fruit, including those down the side of our garden. We've just picked a poundand a half of blackberries, with plenty more still to ripen.
Our apple tree is also producing a bumper crop. Unfortunately they aren't very sweet.
The "how its going" bit: Thames Water cuts off half a village from a local (very small) reservoir due to E Coli contamination, and this means that OCC should approve a massive bunded reservoir that won't be built until the mid to late 2040s in preference to a transfer system that could be up and running in 2 years?
And the picture beneath - with the lovely lake in a valley - yeah, right. That looks like a huge bunded reservoir. Where are the mountains here?
I mean, I get the dislike of NIMBYs but when someone like him is talking from utter ignorance on something, it doesn't half damage their case on other things.
Especially when the proposal would involve being fenced off by deer fences and "The full removal of all
terrestrial recreational activities or aquatic recreational activities" may be required to reduce the Invasive Not Native Species contamination risk to a low level.
Got to conclude with that picture that he's being deliberately misleading if he knows anything about the proposal.
"The right is odious in multiple ways. Undeniable. But at least it makes a vague, often feeble attempt to support free speech. I can’t remember the last time the right tried to cancel a comedy show at the Fringe or similar venues. Probably the Mary Whitehouse era, actually."
That may be true. I don't know. But it does not really support free speech does it.
Look at this instruction from Rees-Mogg - https://twitter.com/katie_martin_fx/status/1558695973446209536?s=21&t=Dgn82nTFBmvZ7aWQMoJhoQ.
Note the way that criticism of government policy is subtly conflated into "extremism". If this is followed through then someone like me who has criticised government policy on fraud, financial regulation and criminal justice, for instance, would be banned as a speaker. It is absurd.
The right - quite as much as the left - need to be taught the critical importance and value of these words of J S Mill -
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..."
Unfortunately, that turned out to be simply a case of a mental jump from "Well, if it's needed..." and "Hey, reservoirs are kind of nice. Valleys, mountains, lakes..."
Then I looked at it all in depth and found out that the principal driver seemed to be commercial (getting a hoarded store to sell on to Affinity Water and Southern Water, and a commercial asset worth billions paid for by someone else). The fact that they were refusing to consider the Severn-Thames Transfer link (far cheaper, FAR quicker, using proven technology, resistant to multi-region droughts, new water into a water-stressed region) because it looked to make their reservoir proposal redundant was a big clue.
They wanted to punt the STT into the 2080s or beyond!
Meanwhile, the reservoir proposal had huge drawbacks they forgot to mention (and they redacted out almost all the Environmental Assessment they presented to the regulator "on commercial grounds"!), and the scale of it was staggering (Farmoor reservoir and any other bunded reservoir in the UK are ponds compared to this one's lake).
150,000,000 tonnes flexing up and down on the clay floor of the Vale within a few hundred metres of an arterial road (the A34) and within a few hundred metres of villages and towns. Floods in Abingdon and surrounding villages regularly. Fogs generated over this water mass and sweeping down over the A34. Occasional methane outgassing.
And the numbers don't add up - in a prolonged drought, it would run down to a level where algae bloom would form and cause E coli and other issues (cf that village).
The Great Barrier Reef is not dying, and the world is not coming to an end.
Brendan O'Neill"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/14/why-eco-alarmists-are-wrong-about-almost-everything/
I have to investigate the Himalayan Giant blackberry, and the (now less) trained fruit left behind by mum.
My prioity is pressure washing solar panels, which really need it.
There's a reason the Welsh habitually stop to add a little more volume each time they pass.
NIMBYism delays, it doesn't prevent, unless government policy is still weak in that area. Or the reasons are stronger than typical NIMBY, which is characterised by spurious and phony reasoning.
Though to be fair, resevoirs are pretty big projects, there are more likely to be valid objections than to, say, 50 houses on the edge of a town of 5000 and the like.
The mountains and valleys tend to be in Wales and Scotland and flooding economically deprived Celtic areas - , that tend to possess some stunning scenery on top - to feed resource-hungry and affluent South-East England is, well, unpopular.
Where luckyguy is correct, however, is that the EU had historically mandated a lot of "environment impact assessment" rules that have had the effect of discouraging new reservoirs.
The bit that gets my hackles up is that the reservoirs already in operation in those areas have water that could feed far wider areas.
I've noticed that United Utilities (in Cumbria, with over 118 sizeable reservoirs) are very favourably inclined to the proposal. As well they might be, but given that they have the water there, it seems foolish not to use it. Those valleys are already flooded and those reservoirs are already built.
I wonder if there's scope for the money for that water to flow into those areas (rather than just the water companies involved).
Why would it make the news that some people heckle the Prime Minister? That's dog bites man territory. We reserve that kind of dullness to royal reporting.
Firstly, great news about the reef.
Secondly, an acknowledgement that the Australian government implemented a lot of environmental legislation that prevented mining runoff in Queensland from poisoning the reef.
It'd be hard to ask, say, the Welsh or the Geordies to flood the many valleys to feed a canal, and for the folk en route to have a canal built through their gardens etc., if the SE can't even be arsed to stop leaks and to implement the STT (and where does the Severn come from?).
Those folk can certainly give the PB pedants a run for their money!
If you know it doesn't come out the other side, then too big an opening to depth ratio stops it being a hole, but a very small opening to depth ratio is fine.
A grave is certainly a kind of hole in the ground.
Yay! Thunder too, double yay!
p.s. 1958 hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ4P7v8OEgs
That's a really strange place to take a Greek holiday. Humdrum beaches, a lot of shipping, Athens suburbs nearby, dry and dusty countryside
Maybe a friend has an amazing villa there?
But Boris' dad owns a lovely villa in Horto in Pelion 3 hours north of there. And that's a stunning part of Greece
Peculiar
The same thing is used for many other mechanisms as well.
(*) I had to bring railways into this, didn't I?
Having crippled HS2 to save £18bn and keep people in their aeroplanes and freight on the roads, some anon chinless wonder thinks they can pull £14bn (cost of the Coutour Canal a decade ago) out of thin air to build a route to Kielder Water. Current claimed cost would be more like £20-25bn. Final cost more like £50, perhaps?
The entire max capacity of Kielder Water is 199M m3, which is the same as Rutland Water plus Graffham Water within 10%. The forecast capacity of the Abingdon setup, for which property purchases have been happening for decades, is about 75% of Kielder Water afaics, and is currently costed (2018) at approx £1.5bn.
The economics are challenging to an extent that Stalin would blink.
From another angle Thames Water put out 2.4bn l of water per day, and leak approx 600m l/day - a number down from 700m l/day.
They are committed to a further 20% reduction by 2030.
I just don't see a "canal" as a credible option.
He's not staying in Nea Makri. It's just a town on the road from Athens Airport to his dad's gaff in Horto, avoiding traffic and also taking in the Marathon Museum (which classicist Boris would find interesting)
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Athens+International+Airport,+Attiki+Odos,+Spata+Artemida+190+04,+Greece/Nea+Makri,+Greece/@38.1137658,23.8497148,12z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x14a1901ad9e75c61:0x38b215df0aeeb3aa!2m2!1d23.9484156!2d37.9356467!1m5!1m1!1s0x14a182c1ac72aab5:0xb38f8f26c5b7e893!2m2!1d23.9761139!2d38.0878845!3e0
They just stopped at a supermarket for beers etc
The STT involves a request to United Utilities to release the water. The first port of call is Lake Vyrnwy, but there are lots of other existing reservoirs that can be called on if they want to hold the water in Vyrnwy.
This is released into the Severn and flows down river.
The STT then abstracts exactly that same amount of water - either into a new pipeline or into a restored canal under the Cotswolds Canal Trust (who absolutely love the proposal). No new canals need to be built; the work is solely new pipelines.
(As an aside, it might theoretically help in times when the Severn floods and the Thames is fine, by directing some of the water towards the Thames).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/salman-rushdie-on-the-road-to-recovery-agent-says/ar-AA10Ek2t
Mathematicians might say that doughnuts and straws are topologically equivalent.
Similarly (sexist warning---delicate ones look away!), a mathematician might say that if you stepwise halve the distance from a gorgeous woman you would never get there ("converge"), but a practical bloke would say that you'd get close enough.
The above is only a related document, but if you can read and understand the content, it's quite clear.
The EU sought to clamp down on new water infrastructure, in favour of making people pay more for water, and scaring them about its scarcity.
'National priorities can also be counterproductive in promoting additional water supply infrastructure as the primary option, going against the logic of the water hierarchy and the need to support water-saving and efficiency measures in the first place. It continues to be essential to ensure that the allocation of funding is sufficiently conditional on independent and ex-ante evidence of full utilisation of water savings and efficiency, effective water pricing policy and metering, minimum performance of public water supply networks or recovery of the costs of projects by the water users concerned. National support measures must also fully respect State aid rules where applicable.'
'In regions where all prevention measures have been implemented according to the water hierarchy (from water saving to water pricing policy and alternative solutions) and taking due account of the cost-benefit dimension, and where demand still exceeds water availability, additional water supply infrastructure can in some circumstances be identified as a possible other way of mitigating the impacts of severe drought.
There are several possible ways of developing additional water infrastructures, such as storage of surface or ground waters, water transfers, or use of alternative sources.'
The idea that this cannot be done just shows both a lack of imagination and realism. It is already happening and more will be done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-57602841
Oh and it has bugger all to do with Boris and his ideas. Anglian Water are doing it because it makes commercial and practical sense.
I'd be interested in a comparison of the * of embankment of embanked reservoirs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Dyke
We can’t let these Islamists win. It’s an awful, backward, violent and repressive ideology that is inimical to enlightenment principles.
Fuck you, Foucault. Idiot.
Suboptimal.
Nor is the humidity that bad
Odd. Perhaps it is the fact this has now dragged on for a week, and it doesn't get that cool at night