Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Energy Prices
#11
(08-01-2017, 07:07 AM)EastMidsBaggie Wrote: Massive increases announced from BG again today.

When do we Take Back Control of one of the countries key basic needs ????

If you don't own it, you can't control it
Bob Crow
Reply
#12
(08-01-2017, 05:29 PM)Heath Wrote: I was really just wondering if you meant the view. I genuinely dont think solar panels or turbines ruin the view. But as you say, subjective viewpoint.

I think large parts of Nothants look bloody awful now, as do parts of Yorkshire and Cornwall. My distaste for the turbines is magnified by the pointless waste of our money they embody too - as Matt Ridley's article suggests.
Reply
#13
(08-01-2017, 07:56 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-01-2017, 05:29 PM)Heath Wrote: I was really just wondering if you meant the view. I genuinely dont think solar panels or turbines ruin the view. But as you say, subjective viewpoint.

I think large parts of Nothants look bloody awful now, as do parts of Yorkshire and Cornwall. My distaste for the turbines is magnified by the pointless waste of our money they embody too - as Matt Ridley's article suggests.

My daughter loves them when we go down the M1.
Reply
#14
How much does the tax payer subsidise nuclear industry compared to the renewable energy industry?
Reply
#15
(08-01-2017, 11:04 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: How much does the tax payer subsidise nuclear industry compared to the renewable energy industry?

Read Matt Ridley's article. This is all a product of the UK's fixation with decarbonisation at any cost. We're even backing the wrong nuclear horse.
Reply
#16
(08-01-2017, 07:56 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-01-2017, 05:29 PM)Heath Wrote: I was really just wondering if you meant the view. I genuinely dont think solar panels or turbines ruin the view. But as you say, subjective viewpoint.

I think large parts of Nothants look bloody awful now, as do parts of Yorkshire and Cornwall. My distaste for the turbines is magnified by the pointless waste of our money they embody too - as Matt Ridley's article suggests.

I think the wind turbines look very graceful. Far more pleasing on the eye than a power station.
Reply
#17
(08-02-2017, 07:16 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(08-01-2017, 11:04 PM)Great Bridge Wrote: How much does the tax payer subsidise nuclear industry compared to the renewable energy industry?

Read Matt Ridley's article. This is all a product of the UK's fixation with decarbonisation at any cost. We're even backing the wrong nuclear horse.

Decarbonisation at any cost is the best thing we can do as a collective. This isn't about markets or competition or anything to do with the economy, clean renewable energy will be e great thing if we can manage it. Solar and wind are easy, quick and inexpensive to set up hence why they are currently rolling out. We will be looking to expand our tidal resources once Swansea bay is fully up and running (the fact it isn't is a huge failing on the Tories who have been dragging their hands about it for years). Once that is sorted and proved viable on a short scale then we will expand. We are currently exploring the avenue of geothermal plants in mainly Cornwall and Devon but that is a ballache to set up and has a similar mechanism to fracking so could be very hard to get off the ground.

As for nuclear, what are you on about? Thorium plants are a fair while away, probably a decade until Canada can get them running with no hitches at which point I hope we will be using that to replace and expand our current operations. As for fusion, it could very well be the case that we will not be alive before that's an option, and the current idiotic decision to leave Euratom with Brexit has harmed that immensely with issues in both Oxford and the south of France with respect to fusion research cropping up. If you're referring to our inability to build to run a nuclear programme as we have done in the past, blame the Labour and Tory governments who got rid of it for short term money saving goals.

As for your article, anyone advocating shale gas is an idiot. It's a seriously short term solution to a growing problem that A) in the long term contributes to the probems that it primarily is employed for, reducing coal usage and B) the short term effects of it are likely to outweigh the short term benefits with health, water and issues with tremors and C) we live in a very dense country unlike the US and these issues will effect more people than in the US.

What it comes down to over and over and over and over again with infrastructure issues is short termism. France and China thought long term with nuclear, and we didn't. As such, we are currently bending over. We thought short term with our rail industry, with our telephone infrastructure and as such we have to overpay for HS2 and a lot of our network isn't electrified, and we have a shit copper cable telephone network where everyone else uses full fibre infrastructure.
Reply
#18
I think we may have a winner for the Serious Shoe award 2017. Take a bow BB.
Reply
#19
Gives the planet a hug. Well said BB.
Reply
#20
I don't embrace any rush back to state run energy, as a young trainee contracts manager I recall the then British
Gas telling us that they would visit us to "negotiate" next years contract. This involved them telling us how much
we would have to pay and how much we could actually use. I will never ever forget them telling us "that is all
the gas we can let you have next year, we have no more on the shelf available"

When commercial gas supply was finally privatised, we saw a drop in price of 60% on the first contract and no
limits on how much they had "on the shelf" For the first time in years, we were actually starting to enjoy similar
rates for our energy as companies that we were trying to compete against in Holland and Germany, and in heavy
engineering that was so key.   

I know that the privatisation of both domestic gas and electricity market in terms of competition has not worked,
and this is partly down to pathetic regulation in my view, but 70% of consumers have a pretty simple option of
saving up to 25% of the cost by switching and some just don't seem interested, other perhaps need help.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)