Give us a fracking break!
Discussion
FredClogs said:
motco said:
FredClogs said:
This is veering off topic but when I was a lad in the 1980s when utilities were publicly owned and not run for profit the mantra was not to produce and consume more but to use and waste less. Perhaps we should not be worrying too much about keeping the lights on if no one is at home, for example... Turbobloke.
When I was a lad in the fifties you couldn't buy gas or electric cookers on the high street you had to go to a 'showroom' where prices were fixed, and service was grim. It was like some totalitarian state institution. The utilities were publicly owned - well government controlled anyway. Dad's Army said:
Stupid Boy!
Not a valid argument at all, merely an observation in contradiction of your apparent worshipping of state ownership. In fact tariffs were designed to make gas cheaper the more you used and that was in the sixties and seventies. It's never wise to waste energy, but neither is it wise to legislate yourself back into the medieval period under some Quixotic imagined notion that you can alter the power of nature. What would be wise would be to accept that the world changes beneath your feet and to use mankind's collective ability to adapt to the change.FredClogs said:
To be fair the vast majority of the signatures on that petition are from the Fylde and surrounding areas, Wyre, Preston North, Lancaster, Blackpool North and South. Nobody in south Ulster signed the petition - tsk...
5122 votes out of 714,266 people in those areas (Morecambe and Lunesdale to South Ribble and Ribble Valley)motco said:
Not a valid argument at all, merely an observation in contradiction of your apparent worshipping of state ownership. In fact tariffs were designed to make gas cheaper the more you used and that was in the sixties and seventies.
It's never wise to waste energy, but neither is it wise to legislate yourself back into the medieval period under some Quixotic imagined notion that you can alter the power of nature. What would be wise would be to accept that the world changes beneath your feet and to use mankind's collective ability to adapt to the change if of any significance
Nicely put motco. (My embolding and italicised addition),It's never wise to waste energy, but neither is it wise to legislate yourself back into the medieval period under some Quixotic imagined notion that you can alter the power of nature. What would be wise would be to accept that the world changes beneath your feet and to use mankind's collective ability to adapt to the change if of any significance
regards,
Jet
motco said:
FredClogs said:
motco said:
FredClogs said:
This is veering off topic but when I was a lad in the 1980s when utilities were publicly owned and not run for profit the mantra was not to produce and consume more but to use and waste less. Perhaps we should not be worrying too much about keeping the lights on if no one is at home, for example... Turbobloke.
When I was a lad in the fifties you couldn't buy gas or electric cookers on the high street you had to go to a 'showroom' where prices were fixed, and service was grim. It was like some totalitarian state institution. The utilities were publicly owned - well government controlled anyway. Dad's Army said:
Stupid Boy!
Not a valid argument at all, merely an observation in contradiction of your apparent worshipping of state ownership. In fact tariffs were designed to make gas cheaper the more you used and that was in the sixties and seventies. It's never wise to waste energy, but neither is it wise to legislate yourself back into the medieval period under some Quixotic imagined notion that you can alter the power of nature. What would be wise would be to accept that the world changes beneath your feet and to use mankind's collective ability to adapt to the change.
t outside and bought beer at the pub through a metal grill - no one is championing a return to 1950s living standards, all I'm saying is that if utilities were run by democratic mandate and not for the profit of (foreign) corporate business we might be minded (or reminded) more often to consume a little less by turning off the lights etc... when not needed.durbster said:
London424 said:
I've read through most of that original article and i'm not sure what you're trying to critisize...it is basically saying they failed, and even if they had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams we'd still be fked.
Basically, editing the quote like that suggests Google have declared renewables are not A solution, when they're actually saying they aren't THE solution. Building a sked. tload of wind farms and solar panels is not going to solve the problem of climate change on its own. If Google really thought renewables are a dead end, they wouldn't be investing hundreds of millions of $ into them.
But yes, I think your analysis that unless somebody comes up with a solution we're basically f
ked is correct 
Anyway, I didn't open this thread up to rehash the same tired arguments from the climate change thread, I was hoping to find out a bit more about fracking as I'm not sure where I stand on it yet.
FredClogs said:
motco said:
FredClogs said:
motco said:
FredClogs said:
This is veering off topic but when I was a lad in the 1980s when utilities were publicly owned and not run for profit the mantra was not to produce and consume more but to use and waste less. Perhaps we should not be worrying too much about keeping the lights on if no one is at home, for example... Turbobloke.
When I was a lad in the fifties you couldn't buy gas or electric cookers on the high street you had to go to a 'showroom' where prices were fixed, and service was grim. It was like some totalitarian state institution. The utilities were publicly owned - well government controlled anyway. Dad's Army said:
Stupid Boy!
Not a valid argument at all, merely an observation in contradiction of your apparent worshipping of state ownership. In fact tariffs were designed to make gas cheaper the more you used and that was in the sixties and seventies. It's never wise to waste energy, but neither is it wise to legislate yourself back into the medieval period under some Quixotic imagined notion that you can alter the power of nature. What would be wise would be to accept that the world changes beneath your feet and to use mankind's collective ability to adapt to the change.t outside and bought beer at the pub through a metal grill - no one is championing a return to 1950s living standards, all I'm saying is that if utilities were run by democratic mandate and not for the profit of (foreign) corporate business we might be minded (or reminded) more often to consume a little less by turning off the lights etc... when not needed.durbster said:
If Google really thought renewables are a dead end, they wouldn't be investing hundreds of millions of $ into them.
Not really, they're doing it because it's massively tax efficient. The greenwash they anoint themselves with is just a PR bonus(Ooh look how green we are! Our server farms run on pixie dust!).hidetheelephants said:
Not really, they're doing it because it's massively tax efficient. The greenwash they anoint themselves with is just a PR bonus(Ooh look how green we are! Our server farms run on pixie dust!).
There is no tax incentives on renewable energy production or use, in the UK as far as I'm aware. You only get tax relief for fracking.FredClogs said:
hidetheelephants said:
Not really, they're doing it because it's massively tax efficient. The greenwash they anoint themselves with is just a PR bonus(Ooh look how green we are! Our server farms run on pixie dust!).
There is no tax incentives on renewable energy production or use...When you sell your carbon-emitting home to live in a carbon-neutral cave
maybe you'll fancy investing in solar. Apparently 'new energy' Venture Capital Trusts allow private investors to enjoy 30% tax relief for all investments in VCTs of up to £200,000
TPTB want to encourage venture capitalists to invest more in commercial solar farms. Maybe one day they'll see the light.
Commercial-size solar farms can generate up to 5MW and still earn money from Feed-in Tariffs for renewable energy. Good ol' taxpayers' taxes, triff!
If only there were no subsidies either.
FredClogs said:
hidetheelephants said:
Not really, they're doing it because it's massively tax efficient. The greenwash they anoint themselves with is just a PR bonus(Ooh look how green we are! Our server farms run on pixie dust!).
There is no tax incentives on renewable energy production or use, in the UK as far as I'm aware. You only get tax relief for fracking.MartG said:
When your 'fuel' is free but you still need massive subsidies to break even, there is something seriously wrong with the concept of renewables
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.s2art said:
durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.Current renewables (and maybe things like fracking) are the short-term solution to limit the scale of the problem and make politicians look like they're on the case. I would like to see more investment in pure RnD but I suppose creating a market for the technology has led to big improvements already, so competition is driving the technology forward.
s2art said:
durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.The nuclear industry was given massive state aid via academic research for decades, but it is maybe a bit more complex than a windmill. The government has just signed a contract that will see us pay x4 the current price for electricity over many decades, ok it's not state aid but it is essentially state price fixing, of the entire market.
FredClogs said:
s2art said:
durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.The nuclear industry was given massive state aid via academic research for decades, but it is maybe a bit more complex than a windmill. The government has just signed a contract that will see us pay x4 the current price for electricity over many decades, ok it's not state aid but it is essentially state price fixing, of the entire market.
For starters.
durbster said:
The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
So you think farmers were bending over backwards to build wind turbines on their land? Were they doing this because they thought they were saving the planet or to stuff their pockets with subsidies paid for by us all through ever-increasing electricity bills?I'll leave it there.
durbster said:
s2art said:
durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.Current renewables (and maybe things like fracking) are the short-term solution to limit the scale of the problem and make politicians look like they're on the case. I would like to see more investment in pure RnD but I suppose creating a market for the technology has led to big improvements already, so competition is driving the technology forward.
motco said:
Why isn't more being spent on the only reliable source of green energy: tidal power? All the other common ones - wave, wind, and solar depend on unreliable natural phenomena. Tides come and go regardless of the sun and the wind. Of course there's always geothermal power but that's a location specific source.
Yes, agree tides are predictable but- financial cost is prohibitive
- environmental issues (sorry greenies)
- studies have shown that even with a practical number of tidal installations around our island coast there would be a serious issues with intermittency requiring the inevitable back-up from other sources (i.e. duplication)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff