|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 22, 2014 17:39:07 GMT
Hahahahah......pisser. Do you write for the Daily Mail? As I said, I'm a realist, I deal in facts - as provided by the national grid in this case. turbinesA perfect example of left wing la-la land thinking from you, lets ignore the facts and rely on myopic idealist political dogma. Thanks for reinforcing the point for me.... Hey Redstriper, I appreciate that it's a bit pointless trying to debate with you but i thought the following news story i've just seen on today's BBC website may be of interest. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29715796Quite a poignant quote: The government is offering more generous subsidies to nuclear than wind in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 22, 2014 18:19:35 GMT
My point Billy, was that "The greens are against nuclear power AND fracking AND fossil fuels". So, on a dead calm cloudy winters day they'd have us doing what exactly ? - perhaps they think we could generate enough heat to keep the whole country powered by happy clapping ??
Some wind/solar power is clearly desirable, I have never said otherwise - but back here in the real world, we need a credible energy policy.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 22, 2014 18:48:03 GMT
My point Billy, was that "The greens are against nuclear power AND fracking AND fossil fuels". So, on a dead calm cloudy winters day they'd have us doing what exactly ? - perhaps they think we could generate enough heat to keep the whole country powered by happy clapping ?? Some wind/solar power is clearly desirable, I have never said otherwise - but back here in the real world, we need a credible energy policy. Well, your "point" this time is different to the last time. I think you are mistaken in thinking that the greens are for the instant end of using fossil fuels & nuclear, but you are correct in assuming that they are against fracking and in my opinion that is pure common sense to anybody without a vested interest who has researched into it with any depth A greater energy mix is required in the short term focusing on renewables and away from fossil fuels. At the moment our politicians are funded and lobbied by these industries on a massive scale and in turn they represent their interests, not the peoples regarding energy. The Greens believe that instead of spending billions to subsidise these dirty fuels that the money would be better invested in smaller localised renewables giving individual communities control of their own energy. Obviously this is a major threat to the current energy suppliers and as a result they are often ridiculed in the media without with insults designed to stick and be repeated by those with only a passing interest in current affairs .......perhaps that's where you get the "happy clapping" insult from. I don't know but it certainly isn't dealing with fact, So meanwhile in the "real world" our politicians have been corrupted and the majority of our population brainwashed into thinking that the Greens are worthy of nothing but derisory comments.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2014 18:52:49 GMT
My point Billy, was that "The greens are against nuclear power AND fracking AND fossil fuels". So, on a dead calm cloudy winters day they'd have us doing what exactly ? - perhaps they think we could generate enough heat to keep the whole country powered by happy clapping ?? Some wind/solar power is clearly desirable, I have never said otherwise - but back here in the real world, we need a credible energy policy. Well, your "point" this time is different to the last time. I think you are mistaken in thinking that the greens are for the instant end of using fossil fuels & nuclear, but you are correct in assuming that they are against fracking and in my opinion that is pure common sense to anybody without a vested interest who has researched into it with any depth A greater energy mix is required in the short term focusing on renewables and away from fossil fuels. At the moment our politicians are funded and lobbied by these industries on a massive scale and in turn they represent their interests, not the peoples regarding energy. The Greens believe that instead of spending billions to subsidise these dirty fuels that the money would be better invested in smaller localised renewables giving individual communities control of their own energy. Obviously this is a major threat to the current energy suppliers and as a result they are often ridiculed in the media without with insults designed to stick and be repeated by those with only a passing interest in current affairs .......perhaps that's where you get the "happy clapping" insult from. I don't know but it certainly isn't dealing with fact, So meanwhile in the "real world" our politicians have been corrupted and the majority of our population brainwashed into thinking that the Greens are worthy of nothing but derisory comments. The flip of that is green subsidies are massive to the power companies and don't seem to be passed onto the consumer Green energy is more expensive than non green
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 22, 2014 19:05:03 GMT
Well, your "point" this time is different to the last time. I think you are mistaken in thinking that the greens are for the instant end of using fossil fuels & nuclear, but you are correct in assuming that they are against fracking and in my opinion that is pure common sense to anybody without a vested interest who has researched into it with any depth A greater energy mix is required in the short term focusing on renewables and away from fossil fuels. At the moment our politicians are funded and lobbied by these industries on a massive scale and in turn they represent their interests, not the peoples regarding energy. The Greens believe that instead of spending billions to subsidise these dirty fuels that the money would be better invested in smaller localised renewables giving individual communities control of their own energy. Obviously this is a major threat to the current energy suppliers and as a result they are often ridiculed in the media without with insults designed to stick and be repeated by those with only a passing interest in current affairs .......perhaps that's where you get the "happy clapping" insult from. I don't know but it certainly isn't dealing with fact, So meanwhile in the "real world" our politicians have been corrupted and the majority of our population brainwashed into thinking that the Greens are worthy of nothing but derisory comments. The flip of that is green subsidies are massive to the power companies and don't seem to be passed onto the consumer Green energy is more expensive than non green And that's how they make it seem a nonviable alternative, give the big energy companies the subsidies and cut them for the consumer. Reverse this and watch the costs plummet. It would be several times cheaper, but would alter the balance of power for the established companies.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2014 19:35:46 GMT
Exactly, the subsidies are a joke
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 22, 2014 21:00:03 GMT
My point Billy, was that "The greens are against nuclear power AND fracking AND fossil fuels". So, on a dead calm cloudy winters day they'd have us doing what exactly ? - perhaps they think we could generate enough heat to keep the whole country powered by happy clapping ?? Some wind/solar power is clearly desirable, I have never said otherwise - but back here in the real world, we need a credible energy policy. Well, your "point" this time is different to the last time. I think you are mistaken in thinking that the greens are for the instant end of using fossil fuels & nuclear, but you are correct in assuming that they are against fracking and in my opinion that is pure common sense to anybody without a vested interest who has researched into it with any depth A greater energy mix is required in the short term focusing on renewables and away from fossil fuels. At the moment our politicians are funded and lobbied by these industries on a massive scale and in turn they represent their interests, not the peoples regarding energy. The Greens believe that instead of spending billions to subsidise these dirty fuels that the money would be better invested in smaller localised renewables giving individual communities control of their own energy. Obviously this is a major threat to the current energy suppliers and as a result they are often ridiculed in the media without with insults designed to stick and be repeated by those with only a passing interest in current affairs .......perhaps that's where you get the "happy clapping" insult from. I don't know but it certainly isn't dealing with fact, So meanwhile in the "real world" our politicians have been corrupted and the majority of our population brainwashed into thinking that the Greens are worthy of nothing but derisory comments. I put my point in quotes to illustrate that it was worded EXACTLY as I originally made it in this thread. Clearly wasted on you... Never Mind
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 22, 2014 21:04:51 GMT
Exactly, the subsidies are a joke The jokes on us though when you compare them to the subsidies they give, without public debate to the coal & nuclear industry, they are even offering huge tax breaks for the fracking companies. Why is it that so much public attention seems to go on the green subsidies though? Because that's where they want the debate to be. The last thing the corporate lobbyists want is for the Green party to be given an equal platform with the mainstream parties. Best for them if the general public just casually dismiss any mention of them with some kind of insult they have subconsciously picked up from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson or the newspapers. Democracy my arse.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 22, 2014 21:07:44 GMT
Well, your "point" this time is different to the last time. I think you are mistaken in thinking that the greens are for the instant end of using fossil fuels & nuclear, but you are correct in assuming that they are against fracking and in my opinion that is pure common sense to anybody without a vested interest who has researched into it with any depth A greater energy mix is required in the short term focusing on renewables and away from fossil fuels. At the moment our politicians are funded and lobbied by these industries on a massive scale and in turn they represent their interests, not the peoples regarding energy. The Greens believe that instead of spending billions to subsidise these dirty fuels that the money would be better invested in smaller localised renewables giving individual communities control of their own energy. Obviously this is a major threat to the current energy suppliers and as a result they are often ridiculed in the media without with insults designed to stick and be repeated by those with only a passing interest in current affairs .......perhaps that's where you get the "happy clapping" insult from. I don't know but it certainly isn't dealing with fact, So meanwhile in the "real world" our politicians have been corrupted and the majority of our population brainwashed into thinking that the Greens are worthy of nothing but derisory comments. I put my point in quotes to illustrate that it was worded EXACTLY as I originally made it in this thread. Clearly wasted on you... Never Mind Yeah, never mind then Reds, good luck with everything.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2014 21:42:41 GMT
Exactly, the subsidies are a joke The jokes on us though when you compare them to the subsidies they give, without public debate to the coal & nuclear industry, they are even offering huge tax breaks for the fracking companies. Why is it that so much public attention seems to go on the green subsidies though? Because that's where they want the debate to be. The last thing the corporate lobbyists want is for the Green party to be given an equal platform with the mainstream parties. Best for them if the general public just casually dismiss any mention of them with some kind of insult they have subconsciously picked up from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson or the newspapers. Democracy my arse. i slightly disagree there. You make your own democracy. For all ukip faults people say the bbc is anti ukip. UKIP have made themselves relevant. When ever I hear the greens I feel I'm being preached at. Maybe they need to try a different way. Instead of trying to force the green issue try a different tact. While they are forever associated with hemp jumpers, protests and swampy maybe they need to soften some policies and start off with popular green issues. They need to endear to more people
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 21:54:54 GMT
I think people need to endear themselves to the Green message if they have any interest in preserving the planet for future generations. Instead of softening their policies it is more important to toughen their stance on a number of issues in order to get the message over that planet earth is not sustainable in its present form . It all comes down to how important saving the planet is to you and what little time there is left to make any difference (if possible at all) for future generations prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2014 22:36:32 GMT
I think people need to endear themselves to the Green message if they have any interest in preserving the planet for future generations. Instead of softening their policies it is more important to toughen their stance on a number of issues in order to get the message over that planet earth is not sustainable in its present form . It all comes down to how important saving the planet is to you and what little time there is left to make any difference (if possible at all) for future generations prosperity. People live for the now. That's how we live. Even though in theory you are right. They need to make their policies appealing for the now, sort of make the public think it was their idea all along if you catch my drift. Not so much soften the policies then but soften how they deliver the message. The greens need a different approach one that appeals. Farage in the pub with a fag and a pint appeals to the demographic he is chasing. The greens need to find their equivalent. Sitting in the road preaching and protesting will get them nowhere
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 22:51:58 GMT
I think people need to endear themselves to the Green message if they have any interest in preserving the planet for future generations. Instead of softening their policies it is more important to toughen their stance on a number of issues in order to get the message over that planet earth is not sustainable in its present form . It all comes down to how important saving the planet is to you and what little time there is left to make any difference (if possible at all) for future generations prosperity. People live for the now. That's how we live. Even though in theory you are right. They need to make their policies appealing for the now, sort of make the public think it was their idea all along if you catch my drift. Not so much soften the policies then but soften how they deliver the message. The greens need a different approach one that appeals. Farage in the pub with a fag and a pint appeals to the demographic he is chasing. The greens need to find their equivalent. Sitting in the road preaching and protesting will get them nowhere I hear what you are saying and in the main you are right. However if shock tactics do not work , then it's difficult to imagine what will. Perhaps a ' green Farage' is what's needed. Western society is very insular and lives in a bubble . It will take major catastrophe before that is likely to change.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 22:56:03 GMT
If people saw some of the satellite stats being downloaded on to secure websites at this very moment then the Greens would probably win the next election.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 23, 2014 10:30:47 GMT
I think people need to endear themselves to the Green message if they have any interest in preserving the planet for future generations. Instead of softening their policies it is more important to toughen their stance on a number of issues in order to get the message over that planet earth is not sustainable in its present form . It all comes down to how important saving the planet is to you and what little time there is left to make any difference (if possible at all) for future generations prosperity. People live for the now. That's how we live. Even though in theory you are right. They need to make their policies appealing for the now, sort of make the public think it was their idea all along if you catch my drift. Not so much soften the policies then but soften how they deliver the message. The greens need a different approach one that appeals. Farage in the pub with a fag and a pint appeals to the demographic he is chasing. The greens need to find their equivalent. Sitting in the road preaching and protesting will get them nowhere Farage in a pub with a fag and a pint is about 60 years out of date...and that is the demographic he's chasing. But the Greens represent the future not the past. Their ideas are a bit too advanced for the Tabloids but maybe if they had candidates who were under the age of 25, fit, big tits, they'd pick up more votes ;-)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2014 10:48:10 GMT
People live for the now. That's how we live. Even though in theory you are right. They need to make their policies appealing for the now, sort of make the public think it was their idea all along if you catch my drift. Not so much soften the policies then but soften how they deliver the message. The greens need a different approach one that appeals. Farage in the pub with a fag and a pint appeals to the demographic he is chasing. The greens need to find their equivalent. Sitting in the road preaching and protesting will get them nowhere Farage in a pub with a fag and a pint is about 60 years out of date...and that is the demographic he's chasing. But the Greens represent the future not the past. Their ideas are a bit too advanced for the Tabloids but maybe if they had candidates who were under the age of 25, fit, big tits, they'd pick up more votes ;-) exactly if your MP is sittinging the road protesting what message just send out to voters and the movement? probably the correct one but it wont wash start with the easy solutions to small problems, that will give them a platform to sell the more radical solutions to the bigger problems. they always seem to jump in straight first a bit of tit wouldnt go amiss neither
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 23, 2014 10:56:39 GMT
"a bit of tit wouldnt go amiss neither"
Perhaps you should join then.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 23, 2014 13:26:26 GMT
Exactly, the subsidies are a joke The jokes on us though when you compare them to the subsidies they give, without public debate to the coal & nuclear industry, they are even offering huge tax breaks for the fracking companies. Why is it that so much public attention seems to go on the green subsidies though? Because that's where they want the debate to be. The last thing the corporate lobbyists want is for the Green party to be given an equal platform with the mainstream parties. Best for them if the general public just casually dismiss any mention of them with some kind of insult they have subconsciously picked up from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson or the newspapers. Democracy my arse. Have you any idea of that the subsidies that would be needed, where I am contracting now they are just moving into the testing of a prototype wind turbine the cost is eye watering. Mass production will bring that down and worldwide it will be successful but the major problem with wind power in the UK is that it's not certain the UK has continuous or strong enough wind to make it viable as a major source of energy.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 23, 2014 13:50:58 GMT
Have you any idea of the subsidies we are using at the moment for coal and nuclear?
Regarding how windy the UK is, are we not one of, if not the Windiest areas of Europe.
It's not just about wind though is it. And as mentioned before the costs will drastically reduce were the subsidies be redirected to more localised and efficient projects rather than gifting it to the corporations and their share holders.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 24, 2014 20:00:17 GMT
Have you any idea of the subsidies we are using at the moment for coal and nuclear? Regarding how windy the UK is, are we not one of, if not the Windiest areas of Europe. It's not just about wind though is it. And as mentioned before the costs will drastically reduce were the subsidies be redirected to more localised and efficient projects rather than gifting it to the corporations and their share holders. Abandon all hope of trying reasoned argument with them mate, the Daily Mail never lies you know....
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Oct 24, 2014 21:33:29 GMT
Have you any idea of the subsidies we are using at the moment for coal and nuclear? Regarding how windy the UK is, are we not one of, if not the Windiest areas of Europe. It's not just about wind though is it. And as mentioned before the costs will drastically reduce were the subsidies be redirected to more localised and efficient projects rather than gifting it to the corporations and their share holders. But what happens when the wind isn't blowing? What new way have we found of storing electricity for a rainy, or rather non-wind day?
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 25, 2014 9:28:23 GMT
Why not invest money into the construction of hydro electric dams. Apparently, they can convert 90% of energy into electricity whereas conventional methods only convert around 50%. The operation is cheaper, cleaner and naturally re occuring. Would have been a better investment than HS2,
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 25, 2014 9:46:58 GMT
Have you any idea of the subsidies we are using at the moment for coal and nuclear? Regarding how windy the UK is, are we not one of, if not the Windiest areas of Europe. It's not just about wind though is it. And as mentioned before the costs will drastically reduce were the subsidies be redirected to more localised and efficient projects rather than gifting it to the corporations and their share holders. But what happens when the wind isn't blowing? What new way have we found of storing electricity for a rainy, or rather non-wind day? It's not about an overnight switch though. It's about focusing on renewables & utilising all available technologies and opportunities to first & foremost generate renewable electricity. The technology is advancing at a fast rate, to divert the incentives away from coal & nuclear towards the current issues will only speed it up more. For instance, the potential generation of wave & tidal power has barely been touched upon. In the meantime, as the balance of where the energy comes from changes, so do the options of phasing out dirty & dangerous power supplies.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 25, 2014 12:20:39 GMT
Why not invest money into the construction of hydro electric dams. Apparently, they can convert 90% of energy into electricity whereas conventional methods only convert around 50%. The operation is cheaper, cleaner and naturally re occuring. Would have been a better investment than HS2, Have a trip out to the Elan Valley in Mid Wales. ..spectacular series of dams. Fantastic views.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 25, 2014 12:24:56 GMT
But what happens when the wind isn't blowing? What new way have we found of storing electricity for a rainy, or rather non-wind day? It's not about an overnight switch though. It's about focusing on renewables & utilising all available technologies and opportunities to first & foremost generate renewable electricity. The technology is advancing at a fast rate, to divert the incentives away from coal & nuclear towards the current issues will only speed it up more. For instance, the potential generation of wave & tidal power has barely been touched upon. In the meantime, as the balance of where the energy comes from changes, so do the options of phasing out dirty & dangerous power supplies. One of the main problems with trying to find new renewable energy sources is the amount of R&D that needs to be done & the scientific testing of new projects. That all takes time & money. The public don't want that. .they want quick fixes. And less taxes. Two into one don't go.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 12:45:02 GMT
It's not about an overnight switch though. It's about focusing on renewables & utilising all available technologies and opportunities to first & foremost generate renewable electricity. The technology is advancing at a fast rate, to divert the incentives away from coal & nuclear towards the current issues will only speed it up more. For instance, the potential generation of wave & tidal power has barely been touched upon. In the meantime, as the balance of where the energy comes from changes, so do the options of phasing out dirty & dangerous power supplies. One of the main problems with trying to find new renewable energy sources is the amount of R&D that needs to be done & the scientific testing of new projects. That all takes time & money. The public don't want that. .they want quick fixes. And less taxes. Two into one don't go. And yet the technology for clean and renewables is already in place. It's the secret the Oil. Gas and power companies don't want us to find out about. Hence the constant negative lobbying of the Green alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 25, 2014 12:46:18 GMT
I think you must have missed one of my previous posts Whizz.
That's what the Greens are advocating, diverting the subsidies away from coal & nuclear and towards the R&D of renewables.
It does take time & money, but have a look at the costs and timescales involved with the new Hinkley nuclear project and imagine the possibilities should renewables get that kind of backing in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 25, 2014 12:50:42 GMT
Absolutely billy...couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Oct 25, 2014 13:08:58 GMT
~Hate to say this, charismatic soundbyte leaders like Farage are just what the Greens don't believe in - but if they had one, they'd probably be up there debating. All the same I expect the Greens to be pushing on long after UKIP have crashed and bunred or gone in with the Tories, if only because the Greens deal with the world as it is, not as their grandparents would love it to have been...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 25, 2014 13:41:56 GMT
~Hate to say this, charismatic soundbyte leaders like Farage are just what the Greens don't believe in - but if they had one, they'd probably be up there debating. All the same I expect the Greens to be pushing on long after UKIP have crashed and bunred or gone in with the Tories, if only because the Greens deal with the world as it is, not as their grandparents would love it to have been... Fair point Sal...but I can't help thinking if someone like Caroline Lucas was leading the Labour Party right now, the election would be a foregone conclusion.
|
|