Give us a fracking break!
Discussion
Art0ir said:
Solar power currently isn't viable.
That said, the efficiency and production costs are improving at a promising rate. I imagine in 20-30 years they will be a valuable contributor to our energy requirements.
Paul Homewood isn't a fan:That said, the efficiency and production costs are improving at a promising rate. I imagine in 20-30 years they will be a valuable contributor to our energy requirements.
Why Solar Will Never Work
Art0ir said:
I'm all for funding research into renewables. What I am entirely adverse to is rolling out substandard tech before it's ready nationwide, where the only people that benefit are those with their snouts in the trough.
Agreed as far as it goes, so given the fundamental nature of the intermittency problem and the devastating result from Google engineers looking at the overall potential of renewables to meet society's needs (down the pan) how far along the expensive dead end should we go?Renewables Catch 22
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Art0ir said:
I'm all for funding research into renewables. What I am entirely adverse to is rolling out substandard tech before it's ready nationwide, where the only people that benefit are those with their snouts in the trough.
Totally agree. What IS required [and thus will never happen] is a parliamentary investigation into the decisions that have been made on UK power security and the influence the power cartels have had on shaping it.
Lancashire CC have this afternoon refused planning permission for fracking at the Roseacre site due to "impact on traffic".
Yesterday they were discussing the Preston New Road site, but something went on regarding legal advice so it appears to have been postponed till Monday
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/business/lo...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-3324...
Yesterday they were discussing the Preston New Road site, but something went on regarding legal advice so it appears to have been postponed till Monday
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/business/lo...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-3324...
Edited by Russ35 on Thursday 25th June 17:31
The decision to reject the roseacre site is the correct one, I live very close to it and the traffic was always going to be the stopper here, its really not suitable to bring the proposed number of wagons over the time period they were talking about. I think it looks like lcc will be forced to over turn the objections of local councillors and allow the little plumpton site though, they just don't appear to have suitable ground to reject it and the legal battle is a cost lcc can't face given the £300million of tory cuts they already face over the next year or so.
All in all its a decent result but people will continue to get in a lather.
All in all its a decent result but people will continue to get in a lather.
4v6 said:
It matters not one jot because c02 isnt doing anything nasty to the planet.
Measuring whats important is more sensible than making important what you can measure.
Surely the answer to combating rising CO2 is the planting of more trees, The waste that is being laid to the Amazon basin and the Far East is beyond belief, but not irrecoverable with proper land management. All it take is international will power. We are a global village and we must treat the planet as such.Measuring whats important is more sensible than making important what you can measure.
FredClogs said:
The decision to reject the roseacre site is the correct one, I live very close to it and the traffic was always going to be the stopper here, its really not suitable to bring the proposed number of wagons over the time period they were talking about. I think it looks like lcc will be forced to over turn the objections of local councillors and allow the little plumpton site though, they just don't appear to have suitable ground to reject it and the legal battle is a cost lcc can't face given the £300million of tory cuts they already face over the next year or so.
All in all its a decent result but people will continue to get in a lather.
It does amuse me when those against it keep arguing we should be using renewable energy instead of shale gas yet down the road at St Michaels they're objecting to wind turbines and over in Aughton they're objecting to a solar farm.All in all its a decent result but people will continue to get in a lather.
If everyone who objected to something got their way humanity would grind to a halt.
Oakey said:
It does amuse me when those against it keep arguing we should be using renewable energy instead of shale gas yet down the road at St Michaels they're objecting to wind turbines and over in Aughton they're objecting to a solar farm.
If everyone who objected to something got their way humanity would grind to a halt.
when will someone ask one of these wonderful protesters "and where do you work".If everyone who objected to something got their way humanity would grind to a halt.
when they switch the lights on or cook a meal were do they think that energy comes from and how long will it last.
xjsdriver said:
Surely the answer to combating rising CO2 is the planting of more trees, The waste that is being laid to the Amazon basin and the Far East is beyond belief, but not irrecoverable with proper land management. All it take is international will power. We are a global village and we must treat the planet as such.
BULLs
tWe all need to take our little bits of this planet and screw anyone else
Sharing is for little pant wetting idiots
johnxjsc1985 said:
when will someone ask one of these wonderful protesters "and where do you work".
when they switch the lights on or cook a meal were do they think that energy comes from and how long will it last.
Well one of the very vocal anti frackers, Bob, who was on last nights local news telling the world "we need to stop burning fossil fuels" runs the Sizzling Pig Co. They specialise in hog roasts.when they switch the lights on or cook a meal were do they think that energy comes from and how long will it last.
No, I don't know what renewable energy he uses for his business.
McTory said:
BULLst
We all need to take our little bits of this planet and screw anyone else
Sharing is for little pant wetting idiots
Finally McWiggle comes out as a YES supporter, So you'll agree that Britain isn't "Better Together" then?...... unless you're not McWiggle (ftWe all need to take our little bits of this planet and screw anyone else
Sharing is for little pant wetting idiots
k, what an ahole he was - I heard he'd been charged with making racist and other discriminatory remarks by the Police, which had caused him to be banned from PH permanently).xjsdriver said:
Finally McWiggle comes out as a YES supporter, So you'll agree that Britain isn't "Better Together" then?...... unless you're not McWiggle (fk, what an ahole he was - I heard he'd been charged with making racist and other discriminatory remarks by the Police, which had caused him to be banned from PH permanently).
Who is this mcWiggle k, what an ahole he was - I heard he'd been charged with making racist and other discriminatory remarks by the Police, which had caused him to be banned from PH permanently).?Was he a unionist pant wetting child?
McTory said:
Who is this mcWiggle ?
Was he a unionist pant wetting child?
He was a source of amusement for all - no matter what side of the political fence you sat on. He had an absurd idea (well, truth be told, he had quite a few absurd ideas) about life in Scotland. Have a wee look over the past Scottish independence threads and you'll get the picture. ?Was he a unionist pant wetting child?
In fact come to think of it he had some rather bizarre views on fracking too...... I'll let you look over his past comments on fracking too and let you make your own mind up. To borrow a phrase from Viz - he was completely hatstand.
Edited by xjsdriver on Thursday 25th June 22:28
McTory said:
xjsdriver said:
Finally McWiggle comes out as a YES supporter, So you'll agree that Britain isn't "Better Together" then?...... unless you're not McWiggle (fk, what an ahole he was - I heard he'd been charged with making racist and other discriminatory remarks by the Police, which had caused him to be banned from PH permanently).
Who is this mcWiggle k, what an ahole he was - I heard he'd been charged with making racist and other discriminatory remarks by the Police, which had caused him to be banned from PH permanently).?Was he a unionist pant wetting child?
xjsdriver said:
He was a source of amusement for all - no matter what side of the political fence you sat on. He had an absurd idea (well, truth be told, he had quite a few absurd ideas) about life in Scotland. Have a wee look over the past Scottish independence threads and you'll get the picture.
In fact come to think of it he had some rather bizarre views on fracking too...... I'll let you look over his past comments on fracking too and let you make your own mind up. To borrow a phrase from Viz - he was completely hatstand.
Given that a lot of McTory's 16 posts on PH are replies to your posts and contain a certain degree of piss taking I can't help but feel you're being taken for a mug. In fact come to think of it he had some rather bizarre views on fracking too...... I'll let you look over his past comments on fracking too and let you make your own mind up. To borrow a phrase from Viz - he was completely hatstand.
Edited by xjsdriver on Thursday 25th June 22:28
That you don't seem to have cottoned on to this is somewhat worrying.
Oakey said:
xjsdriver said:
He was a source of amusement for all - no matter what side of the political fence you sat on. He had an absurd idea (well, truth be told, he had quite a few absurd ideas) about life in Scotland. Have a wee look over the past Scottish independence threads and you'll get the picture.
In fact come to think of it he had some rather bizarre views on fracking too...... I'll let you look over his past comments on fracking too and let you make your own mind up. To borrow a phrase from Viz - he was completely hatstand.
Given that a lot of McTory's 16 posts on PH are replies to your posts and contain a certain degree of piss taking I can't help but feel you're being taken for a mug. In fact come to think of it he had some rather bizarre views on fracking too...... I'll let you look over his past comments on fracking too and let you make your own mind up. To borrow a phrase from Viz - he was completely hatstand.
Edited by xjsdriver on Thursday 25th June 22:28
That you don't seem to have cottoned on to this is somewhat worrying.
I'm more surprised that you actually counted them..... each to their own I suppose!!!!
Edited by xjsdriver on Friday 26th June 00:39
xjsdriver said:
Surely the answer to combating rising CO2 is the planting of more trees, The waste that is being laid to the Amazon basin and the Far East is beyond belief, but not irrecoverable with proper land management. All it take is international will power. We are a global village and we must treat the planet as such.
Surely the number (and type) of trees is more important than the area covered by forests? Although the area covered by forests is decreasing, the density of those forests is increasing but I can't find anything about how the number of trees is changing. Funny that. http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/ne...xjsdriver said:
Whoosh parrot for Oakey.......
I'm more surprised that you actually counted them..... each to their own I suppose!!!!
I didn't count anything, just looked at his posts. You sort of notice when he seems to be taking the piss out of one particular person!I'm more surprised that you actually counted them..... each to their own I suppose!!!!
Edited by xjsdriver on Friday 26th June 00:39
Is it McWiggle then?
Oakey said:
xjsdriver said:
Whoosh parrot for Oakey.......
I'm more surprised that you actually counted them..... each to their own I suppose!!!!
I didn't count anything, just looked at his posts. You sort of notice when he seems to be taking the piss out of one particular person!I'm more surprised that you actually counted them..... each to their own I suppose!!!!
Edited by xjsdriver on Friday 26th June 00:39
Is it McWiggle then?
Sir Humphrey said:
Surely the number (and type) of trees is more important than the area covered by forests? Although the area covered by forests is decreasing, the density of those forests is increasing but I can't find anything about how the number of trees is changing. Funny that. http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/ne...
Like I said, this issue needs proper land management, which would address all issues concerned, basically tracts of land could be replanted as they are utilised, it would take between 30 to 50 years for most harvestable species to recover - obviously some species of trees are slower growing than others and some would take up to 150 years to become fully mature - again this boils down to land management.xjsdriver said:
Sir Humphrey said:
Surely the number (and type) of trees is more important than the area covered by forests? Although the area covered by forests is decreasing, the density of those forests is increasing but I can't find anything about how the number of trees is changing. Funny that. http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/ne...
Like I said, this issue needs proper land management, which would address all issues concerned, basically tracts of land could be replanted as they are utilised, it would take between 30 to 50 years for most harvestable species to recover - obviously some species of trees are slower growing than others and some would take up to 150 years to become fully mature - again this boils down to land management.Of course, what you do with that biomass then matters, as soon as it dies that carbon is getting released...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff