Click to get your own widget

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Automated Cars/Trains - Spreading the Idea

       John Redwood has blogged in favour of automated cars:

We are close to the point where technology can create automatic chauffeurs for the many. If you go from the Business car park at Terminal 5 to the airport, you go in your own automatically controlled pod vehicle. That requires tracks. Soon the technology with sat navs and satellite controls will allow similar treatment for a vehicle using the normal highway.

It is difficult to see how last century train technology can compete with this likely development.

    I put up a reply extending the debate to cover space and X-Prizes:
"It is indeed the sort of technological progress that could get us out of recession if only our Luddite political class would allow it.

However John is, to the best of my knowledge, the only MP to have even mentioned this transport revolution just as, a few years ago, he was the only MP to support space development.
(Space is now getting a bit more coverage but all that is happening is that with “the worst space agency in the world” it is being used to shovel money at the ESA bureaucrats who have wasted 99.9% of previous money.)

Lifelogic you are wrong about this being “a bit away”. Automated cars are already road legal in Nevada and silicon valley and the Cambridge group say that in the near future it only add just over £100 to the building cost of new cars. Britain, of course, is not yet even at the stage of allowing it if there is a man with a red flag walking ahead – something agreed to have assisted in Britain’s late Victorian technological decline.

As someone who has here & elsewhere promoted UKIP’s policy of putting our space money into an X-Prize Foundation may I point out that this breakthrough was brought about by DARPA offering $3 million in prizes. They subsequently said that if it had been funded conventionally they would have had to spend $100 mill & might well have got nothing. I have taken this as proof that X-Prizes are at least 33 times more effective than conventional funding. If so then even without increasing our space budget of £330m it would match NASA’s $18 bn in effectiveness.

If our political class (John and UKIP excepted) were not scientifically illiterate Luddites whose attitude to technology has for the last 50 years been “Doh whassat?”

And as John points out this makes conventional rail obsolete, or rather even more obsolete. However if it is practical to run cars automatically it is clearly easy to do so with trains."

    What I didn't mention is that a few days earlier he had written about trains and I put up a comment (July 18th 10.16) promoting automated trains and in particular my previous proposal for a prize like the DARPA automated driving prize, which was about to revolutionise road transport, to do the same, very quickly indeed, to automate the whole train system. Making trains competitive has been one of both John and my hobbyhorses for years and I once acknowledged that a point he made - that the weight of trains, far greater than buses of similar capacity is a sign of how outdated they are and a reason they are so inefficient.

    In that case John edited out my link to the proposal, which is his right when I am using his blog to get readers here, though it did open it to commenters questioning stuff that would have been obvious in the unedited post.

    I did not mention on his blog that his post clearly came from mine - that would be discourteous - but I am pleased when an idea of mine percolates up somewhere closer to the corridors of power (it happens rarely enough and John is only close to the corridors rather than in them because of Cameron's obvious fear of competence and principles). However I feel that it is proper to mention it here where it will be seen by fewer.

   And it is clear that there is no doubt that my proposal for using a DARPA style prize to cheaply (tens of thousands not tens of billions) and quickly automate the entire rail system (about a year not  decades) is entirely workable and is known to the government even if, as normal, they do nothing.

   Well nothing but continue to spend £45 billion on HS2 which is even more obsolete than previously thought.

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 26, 2013

Would the British Government Treasonously Ask Foreign Governments To Promote False Scares?

    The approved media have been heavily reporting that the Japanese government have called on Britain to stay in the EU. Richard North on the admirable EU Referendum explains how we are going to be subjected to a long line of approved types pushing scares about quitting the EU. Also how most of the "industry leaders" wheeled out are turning out to be former civil servants and the like given a seat on the board of whichever company was their department's main supplier when they were still civil servants, or industrialists who have invested a lot in lobbying for helpful EU regulations.

    However the most disgraceful bit appears to be being admitted in this, not so much the government statement as the explanation for how it came about, from the Japanese embassy:

The UK, as a champion of free trade, is a reliable partner for Japan. More than 1,300 Japanese companies have invested in the UK, as part of the single market of the EU, and have created 130,000 jobs, more than anywhere else in Europe. This fact demonstrates that the advantage of the UK as a gateway to the European market has attracted Japanese investment.
In a statement to the Sunday Times the Japanese embassy in London explained the intervention, saying: "We know some countries decided not to submit comments but as a non-EU nation and major investor in the UK we thought it was appropriate".

    So they, and a large number of other countries were specifically asked to submit comments telling the British people what to do. Who asked them. It could only be the British Foreign Office.

And so:

Dear Foreign Office,
                                   I note that the Japanese embassy, on releasing a statement telling the British people we should stay in the EU, stated that a large number of countries had been asked to submit comments on these lines, a number of whom had refused, presumably because they thought it wrong to try and scare the British people into remaining in the recession zone as the rest of the world grows at 6%.

           Clearly the only organisation in Britain with the authority to ask all these diplomats to so undermine Britain is the Foreign Office.

          I would therefore like to know, under the Freedom of information Act exactly which civil servants and indeed ministers were involved in asking foreign governments to submit such comments, which governments were asked, how many did, how many refused and how many submitted comments that were not sufficiently fear inducing to be used.


Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Why Florence Works & Can It Be Copied

   In March I was on holiday in Florence and it is a wonderful place. I recommend if you go you join the Friends of the Uffizi rather than getting regular tickets. That gets you into that gallery and a number of others as many times as you want and we got more than our money's worth. Beyond that the friends don't have to wait in the normal queues.

   However what I really loved, more even than the statues and paintings, was the city itself. It is still the medieval city with houses crammed together and plied on top of each other with a number of piazza communal areas of about 130 x 220 feet. The medieval city, where we were, is only a couple of km across so you can walk anywhere in a few minutes yet in the Middle Ages had a population of 100,000.

     You can see how, over the centuries, floors have been added and new houses piled in every corner. The effect is chaotic but full of life.

       OK so here's where I'm going. The flats are themselves not large and, except on a few roofs, people don't have gardens. The flat we were in was about 10ft x 25, but the advantage of being able to go anywhere in a few minutes walk is well worth it. Clearly it works or Florence would not be one of the world's greatest cities in the history of both science and art.

      I have previously written of container houses. Containers being 8 1/2 feet in height and width. On ships they get stored up to 8 high, but these are full containers on a rolling ship whereas houses are mainly air and static. Not sure what the safe height limitation of container flats would be but it must be several multiples of that.

      However it is permissible to transport single units a bit bigger than that.

"The authorities need to be notified if a road vehicle is over 3m wide and/or if a vehicle is over 18.75m long" (10ft x 62ft)  20ft high, which means 2 stories, would be OK as long as you have a note in your cab not to drive under lower bridges.

      If there was a market for cheap housing and the only reason there isn't is because of regulations, there would be enough demand for manufacturing of lots of 10ft x 60ft by 2 floor housing, which is 1,200 square feet which is actually a substantial modern house.

   So far such container housing has been built out of old shipping containers. This is another function of us not being allowed a mass production housing system but if you think about it the inherent cost of making a shipping container, designed to take the knocks of travelling the world and then cutting all the necessary holes for windows, doors etc, is bound to be considerably greater than mass producing these boxes to fit the more stationery role of housing. It is the savings in mass production that make the current difference. Also I can say from my holiday experience that a 10ft width is fine but 8 1/2 is a little tight. All in all we could have good housing units capable of being delivered by lorries any time it is allowed.

     So lets try a little chaotic free marketism. Allocate an area of 1 - 4 square km. Put in drainage and electric connections and a fair bit of paving. Designate some areas as piazzas - in Scotland I would suggest some sort of movable clear plastic roof.

     And then get the regulators out of the way.

     It could be done by arranging it all in terraces all organised in advance like Keetwonen in Amsterdam but I rather like the idea of them being heaped up wherever the customers want - well within the limits of what a factoring organisation will allow to be safe and profitable. There must be a factoring organisation or better yet, several, each, say 1/2km on a side, but if we want it to be innovative and chaotic it had better not be governmental.

    The history of Florence suggests this would be a lot better than normal housing schemes. A side advantage is that it is an experiment. I am certain architects would find out a lot more about what people actually like from watching them doing it than from all the mass planning we have had.

    Now all we need is some island, with under 200 inhabitants to be discomfited and enough space that a few km of development would have no effect - say 367 km, about 2/3rds the size of the Isle of Man, 70 miles by road and tunnel from Glasgow and with the potential for the establishment of a major new industry.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Cheap Nuclear - How To Get There From Here

   Yesterday I put up the evidence that 90-95% of the cost of nuclear power (96-8% of the cost of our basket of power) is ultimately government regulation.

   But there is a massive (largely government funded) scare industry against nuclear and thus considerable public fear. So how can politicians safely advocate change without being publicly pilloried.

   Well to some extent they can't - if you stand for something you must expect opponents to oppose.

   Still there are ways to make it easier.

      Despite the media hype the evidence is that everywhere there is more support than opposition to nuclear. For example this recent UK poll shows 43% in favour of subsidising nuclear power and only 23% against. The more remarkable since I, as a nuclear enthusiast, don't think subsidy is either desirable or necessary and would have to be one of the 23%.

   Professor Cohen's book - chapter 4 - Is the Public Ready -  confirms that popular opinion has long been on the pro-nuclear side, as is professional opinion. Indeed it is only journalists, the less they know of the subject and the less used to actually writing they are, who are against.

   So the way to safely get approval is to ask the public. UKIP is committed to popular referendums and this would be an ideal issue. Remember that the people are sovereign and if we were to lose we would have to accept that and prepare for blackouts. But even then, simply by asking and accepting it, we would gain respect (and when the lights go out, not be blamed which is a major issue currently facing all those in power).

   Note that it is also probably advisable to get more than just the law on our side. Building new nuclear plants is going to send the eco-fascists apeshit.  We need clear popular support when they start real sabotage. The widespread deployment of inexpensive modular nuclear reactors with none of the scare stories coming true would totally undermine and discredit the current pseudo-environmental Luddite movement and we should prepare for not just lies but violence.

This is my proposed question:

   "Having received expert opinion that nuclear power is the safest generating system there is and that 90-98% of electricity cost is political rather than engineering, HMG/UKIP/this government wishes to radically reduce regulation of nuclear power, and invest, where there are high profits to be made, in the mass production of modular reactors. Do you concur?"   with possible answers Agree/Disagree.

    This is actually more impartial than the independence referendum where Yes is inherently a more cheerful option.

    I would give it a 4 month period with the government funding recording of 18 weekly, impartially moderated, 3 a side speakers, in an hour long formal debates offered to broadcasters. I would also set up a committee to oversee coverage by state owned media and report whether they have kept to the legal duty of "balance". If they are found to have violated their Charter they will automatically lose their rights, including the right to licence fees, under it. If it were a Scotland only poll the vitiating of the BBC Charter would apply to Scotland alone. The BBC will want to be biased but under that watch and having no control over who speaks on the debates, they would not be able to do much.

    I am actively trying to make this a fair referendum and seen to be fair. If we progressives lose then so be it. Anybody in politics should remember that the people should be sovereign when they have made up their minds after getting the facts - even when you think they are wrong. So long as it is seen to be done fairly, even losing, would earn us respect.

    But I am convinced we wouldn't lose. As pointed out public opinion is already far more favourable to nuclear power than that of the ruling class; people very much do not like rising energy bills and would be open to any convincing debate and I have no doubt that, as with the warming scare, all the sensible arguments would be on the progressive side. Having handed out energy UKIP leaflets at the Coatbridge by-election, that nobody was one the side of higher electricity bills.

    If the past is any guide I suspect the anti-nuclearists could be guaranteed to be against the very concept of formal debate, as the alarmists are, and would thus tend to discredit themselves from the start. I have long been of the opinion that open political debate (the sort where both sides get to debate not the BBC sort where only 1 side is invited) is a necessary and almost sufficient condition for a free society. we3 obviously do not have that today and a side benefit of this proposal would be to make it much easier to get it on other subjects.

      Not only do I think we would win I think, that after 18 weeks of genuine debate, a well informed public would vote by something like 90:10 for inexpensive power and an end to recession.

    This referendum could be run as a UK one, or by the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish (or English) assemblies, depending on where building is proposed.
     My proposal, assuming Scotland votes to agree - if we don't Sellafield or Wales probably will, but this looks like the best option:


   An island off the coast of Scotland. 142 square miles, 2/3rds the size of the Isle of Man but with a population of 188.

    If the Scottish Tunnel Project is carried out it will be 70 miles, by fast road from Glasgow. Being an island it is relatively easy to stop people getting on and by people I mean eco-fascist saboteurs. Being that close it is virtually in commuting distance of Glasgow.

    The government can set up a factory to mass produce nuclear reactors there, probably a joint stock company partly owned by Westinghouse, Hyperion or some other manufacturer with a design ready, churning them out at about $200 million (£140 m) a shot each every few days selling them at about $800m. Looking at Boeing's investment in aircraft I think this factory would cost £10-20 bn.

      It could be done entirely by overseas investors but it looks to me to good an investment not to take a share, particularly with UKIP committed to end windmill subsidy which would save us more than that in the 2-3 years before it is making profits.

   Put the first 4 on the island, with cable connection to Lowland Scotland and we double Scotland's electricity capacity and greatly reduce the price. Technically power generators should be closer to the customer to save in transmission costs but with power this cheap that doesn't matter and the political advantage of isolation does.

   My guess is that in a few years not only would we be supplying all the power the UK wants, at  10% of current costs but gearing up a doubled production line, possibly including of thorium reactors to supply the world too. Jura and next door Islay would become as much the major world centre for the industry as Everett, home of the Boeing factory, is to America's iconic industry. My other guess is that if modular reactors were available for instant installation and clearly working, all the kicking and screaming by Luddites across Europe and some of North America wouldn't stop demand outstripping supply. Indeed that Luddite kicking and screaming would cease be seen as the childish tantrum of those scared of human progress that it is.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

What does it cost to build a nuclear plant? What could it cost?

       For some time I have been saying that at least 90% of the cost of our electricity is political parasitism. This article shows that, once again, I have been overly generous to our traditional political class (edited here but worth reading in full):

What does it cost to build a nuclear plant? What could it cost?

March 2nd, 2008


.... when the capital costs of nuclear energy is examined, it becomes apparent that current policies are far from generous to any potential plant constructors. In fact, the way things are currently set up, the costs due to regulatory reasons are enormous.

Note: This post applies to the United States, because obviously the laws and regulations will vary from country to country, and therefore it’s necessary to limit things to one jurisdiction. However, the basic principle that administration cost more than materials and that the actual construction costs are not necessarily very high applies in to almost every nation.

Current Nuclear Plant Construction Cost:
The current theoretical overnight cost of constructing a nuclear power plant is about 2 to 2.5 billion dollars for a plant with two conventional reactors and generating about two gigawatts – a nominally sized plant. This compares favorably with fossil fuel plant. Westinghouse has estimated the cost of four power plants, each containing two AP1000 reactors and generating more than 2 gigawatts each to be about 8 billion US dollars. General Electric has stated that their new ESBWR design could reduce costs to below $1000 (£660 m) per kilowatt of installed capacity....

Over half of the cost of nuclear power plant construction is directly related to the cost of licensing, approval and other bureaucratic expenses. A recent proposal for plant construction by NuStar is expected to cost 520 million dollars for licensing. In other words, if everything goes according to plan, the company will have to spend half a billion dollars before they even break ground on the new plant. Although the license fees for any given power plant are only a few million dollars, the process requires numerous studies, surveys, hearings and can take many years. Each and every plant must be certified and each reactor on the site must go through the process, even if the plan is to build multiple identical reactors. Public hearings are conducted and petitions are accepted against the planned plant. Injunctions, hearings, contesting of studies and other such measures can add months or years.
Each plant is independently designed and each design is studied and approved as if it were the first of its kind, even if it is identical to others. Additionally, the reactor design must be licensed before it can be used in any plant. GE has been working on the certification process for the ESBWR for nearly ten years and is just getting to the final steps of the design certification process. Despite not selling a single reactor, they have already invested $400 million in the licensing process alone. The French firm Areva has stated that it will cost at least a quarter billion dollars for the design work needed to get one of their reactors approved in the United States, despite being approved in the European Union which has equally comprehensive safety standards. They also estimate the cost of designing a nuclear power plant at half a billion dollars. FOR EACH PLANT!
If this same procedure were applied to aircraft, then every Boeing 747 to roll off the assembly would have to go through the extensive flight testing and design certification that the original prototype went through in 1969, even if it was just an updated version of an existing aircraft. The process would also need to be repeated each time an existing aircraft received an engine upgrade or had the seats reupholstered.
By comparison to fossil fuel power plants:
Fossil fuel plants are not that much cheaper than nuclear plants, even despite the massive regulatory expenses in nuclear power plants......
So what is the actual cost a nuclear power plant can be built for?
In order to determine the minimum cost of a nuclear power plant, it is necessary to separate the regulatory and governmental costs and determine simply what the physical cost is for the materials needed and the labor to construct the plant. This is not as easy as it sounds, since many of the components of the nuclear power plant have

The estimates are derived from reported costs of construction of general purpose structures and items and the contracts which have been issued for major components of thermal power plants or related systems to various companies. The estimate are based on real world costs as they are now, although some might argue that these costs could be lower if the mass-production approach were applied to other components of a power plant, as might be the case in a large nuclear energy initiative.
One of the costs which is the most difficult to pin down is the cost of the reactor and reactor systems, since the regulatory costs and other administrative fees are built in. In this case, the cost represents integral boiling water or pressurized water reactors in the Generation III+ family. Newer reactor designs, such as the Pebble Bed or the Molten Salt Reactor could be considerably less costly (or more costly) to construct, but as such reactors have not yet been deployed commercially, this is more difficult to be certain of. The estimates are based primarily on information from Westinghouse relating to the construction and installation costs of reactors as well as some of the cost and feasibility studies done for the IRIS reactor.
Some have suggested that a modular reactor system could be built for under a few million dollars. In theory, this might be possible, and some of the smaller experimental reactors such as the Aircraft Reactor Experiment and Project Pluto were able to construct working reactors for, by modern standards, extremely low costs. A nuclear reactor is not necessarily as complicated a piece of equipment as one might think. Most of the design considerations are related to control systems and other incidental factors. The actual reactor, however, is basically just a big pressure vessel. Depending on the size of the vessel, it may or may not require specialized heavy industrial processes to fabricate. Modern power reactors can take up to two or three years from order to delivery, however mass production and modular fabrication has been demonstrated on comperable industrial equipment. Nuclear energy concepts which rely on multiple reactors of smaller size or do not need a single high pressure vessel, such as the CANDU reactor avoid this limitation.
Physical Cost Breakdown:

Non-Power Related:
Land Acquisition and Clearing: 0~5 million USD
Administrative office building: 20 million USD
Fixtures and other incidental: 2 million USD
Roads and parking: 500,000 USD
Other Misc: 500,000 USD

~25 million dollars


Perimeter security (fence, gate, systems): 2 million USD
Guardhouse, other security: 2 million USD
On-site emergency services: 4 million USD
Four One Megawatt diesel generators: 250,000 USD
Six 125 kilowatt diesel generators: 200,000 USD
Uninterruptible Power systems: 150,000 USD
Control Room Systems and Redundancy: 1 million USD

~10 million dollars

Power Generating:
Steam Turbine Generator Sets: 160 million USD

Piping, cooling, regulation: 30 million USD
Turbine building: 10 million UDS
Misc support and service equipment: 5 million USD

Transformers and switching: 15 million USD

~220 Million dollars
Based on these broad estimates, it appears that the non-nuclear aspects of a thermal power plant as well as the necessary security and administrative infrastructure will be of a cost of approximately a quarter billion US dollars. It may very well be less than this, as the estimates are generous. It may also be somewhat more due to other expenses. This cost does not include the infrastructure – the running of transmission lines to the plant site. Because nuclear power plants do not require constant fueling, pipelines or other fuel delivery systems are not necessary.
These costs, however, could be substantially less if the nuclear power plant is replacing an existing fossil fuel power plant. Electrical switching equipment, transformers and transmission lines can be reused in the new plant. Additionally, generators could be refurbished and reused for some or all of the power generation. Turbine-generator sets can theoretically be reused, however most fossil fuel plants run at a lower pressure than nuclear plants and therefore reusing some or all turbines may or may not be possible, depending on the circumstances.
Nuclear Related:
Containment Structures: 40 million USD
Fueling and Spent Fuel Handling: 20 million USD
Reactor and Reactor subsystems: 150-200 million USD

Therefore, the physical cost of constructing a nuclear power plant, using existing systems and generation III+ reactor technology could be reasonably estimated at as low as half a billion US Dollars for a two gigawatt capacity plant. In reality, however, there will always be some administrative costs. This only represents the "overnight cost" of the construction. In other words, it does not include interest on loans or bonds used to build the plant, which will vary depending on how much of the capital is borrowed. There will also be a need for insurance, taxes on items and some regulatory and licensing fees. It hardly seems unreasonable that the necessary inspections and design considerations could be accomplished for under one hundred million dollars, especially considering that this would be much higher than the approval costs of nearly any non-nuclear installation of equal or greater environmental hazard.
Therefore, our theoretical nuclear power plant can clearly be built for well under one billion US Dollars (£660m)and quite possibly under half a billion US dollars (£330m). It may even be as low as a quarter of a billion US dollars, if it were to replace an existing fossil fuel plant.

  Considering that nuclear power generation has a considerably lower fuel cost than other methods, even with the once through fuel cycle, and a substantially lower cost when advanced fuel cycles are employed, the return on such an investment would be enormous. Some of the advanced fuel cycles that make use of on-site reprocessing or even continuous reprocessing and can make use of alternative fuel cycles like thorium could cut the already low cost of fuel for reactors much further. And maybe, just maybe, could it someday be “too cheap to meter?” Perhaps we’ll find out.

Now, when can we get started on this?


      So with the construction cost £330-660 million while we are being told new power stations here will cost about £5 bn we are running at 7-13% of current nuclear costs. But currently nuclear is about 40% of the average of the basket of power sources we use, driven up by windmills. So that runs between 5.2% and 2.5%.

    I am assuming prices unaltered since 2008 - which is reasonable, perhaps overly reasonable since cutting edge engineering tends to drop in cost over time.

   The 747 comparison is instructive.  Mass production is (as with house building) being prevented by the regulatory requirement of separate government approval for every one.

   Since nuclear plants have comparatively low fuel and running costs the price would not rise when that is included (it might fall).

   5.2% of current electricity bills is about £70 a year. That is far below standing charges so standing charges and "too cheap to meter" is clearly as practical as the other predictions made at the time despite all those politicians (eg Salmond) who claimed to have heard the nuclear industry promising that to be liars.

   Tomorrow I will discuss how to go about it.

Labels: , ,

Monday, July 22, 2013

Where Did The "760 Dead In Heatwave" Story Come From & Why Aren't Far greater Cold Deaths Reported?

    The media have been pushing a claim that the heat wave has killed 760 people. Remarkably the UPI report, the media's own prime source, on this omitted to say where it came from which certainly looks suspiciously like they don't care in the least about its veracity.

    After a certain amount of searching I found it originated with a theoretical calculation by a Professor Armstrong of the London Hospital of Tropical Diseases, based on a previous model he had made up.  In his favour he actually said 650 people but, the media being what it is, that got mistranslated into 760. None of this peer review rubbish when a good scare story is needed.

   I have put up this comment:

"Or 760 as the media have translated it.

Clearly the calculation is entirely theoretical and the professor has not attempted to find a single one of these.

I would be interested to know how many, by the same calculation, die each year because of cold .  I would assume, since cold is much more dangerous than heat and winter lasts much longer the total must be at least hundreds of times greater - and at least half could be prevented by ending the government's deliberate policy of increasing fuel poverty.

Unaccountably the media seem less interested in the professor's figures of the 10s, perhaps hundreds,  of thousands killed deliberately killed by our politicians.   Assuming winter cold does kill 200 times as many and that half could be saved if energy costs were not a significant limit that makes government  responsible for killing 76,000 people annually. Doubtless if this is not the figure the professor agrees with he will say what is.

Of course a hundred times greater figure of deliberate state murder, even if not disputed by the LSHTM is unlikely to be considered as newsworthy by our media - or alternately so newsworthy as  to have to be censored. "

   I'll let you know if  Armstrong  officially gives a better figure than 76,000, as he certainly will if doing science rather than just pandering to the media scaremongers but until they do 76,000 seems to be at least as reliable a factoid as the 760.

   I'll also let you know if the LSHTM issue a statement that the government is indeed deliberately killing 76,000 a year (or any other number)

   And if the media report it as if it were as important as this scare story. Don't hold your breath.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 21, 2013

BBC Knowingly Lying To Promote Fascist Scares - Proving Every Employee Is A thief As well As A Liar

    So nobody else has to I quote this comment I got in reply to one of mine on Dellers. I had been pointing out the BBC's corruption in promoting organisations like ASH without revealing that they are not popular movements in any way but simply government funded (98%) sock puppets. One alarmist, probably one of the government funded trolls claimed, dishonestly it was proven, to doubt that 98% figure. Anyway6 this is the relevant comment:

3 days ago 

I have written to the BBC a number of times to challenge their reporting of fake charity claims.
They respond by saying that these 'charities' are not fake charities and that the information they provide is genuine and unbiassed.

I can't believe the BBC is that naïve

    Me neither. They cannot be ignorant of the fact of general government funding. In which case they are, by definition, lying propagandists.

   Note also that whenever ASH's opposite number, FOREST, is mentioned these same beeboids say that it is receives industry funding. Clearly thus they are not only censoring they are abjuring an trace of the "balance" their charter legally requires. In which case they all know that they have no legal right to licence money and thus every BBC employee is not only a lying fascist propagandist but also a thief.

   In a similar vein Bishop Hill has an interesting picture of windmills and gas wells in close proximity and the latter can be seen to be hundreds (at least) of times less visually intrusive than the former.

    The Beeboid Nazis regularly run stories about how intrusive gas wells will be, as do the government funded "environmental" propaganda organisations but it can now be said with certainty that nobody who is in any way honest or has any slightest actual concern for the environment has spent less than hundreds of much time denouncing windmills than shale gas.

    That does not, of course, prove that absolutely everything the thieving obscenities in the BBC and "environmental" movement say is equally dishonest but it does prove that this should be the default assumption until proven otherwise.


Labels: , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.