Just found out my neighbour is the Green Party candidate...
Discussion
Ask him why he thinks destroying the UK economy and starving everyone that isn't capable of fleeing the smoking looted ruin of a country is a plan worthy of anything other than derision; their energy policy will finish the deindustrialisation started by Blair and their anti-industrial farming policy will starve everyone to death, a bit like Pol Pot's Cambodia only with more bulls
t and fewer machine guns. There might be fish to eat though, their fishing policy's not completely crazy.
A depressing proportion of the housing built post war was utter ste and was lucky to provide 10 years of reasonable habitation; some real turds were uninhabitable before they were even handed to luckless council tenants. 100k units a year added to renovation of sound but tired existing housing stock would be a more realistic target. It's probably possible to do 300k but doing so will result in the building trade going over a cliff a few years hence.
That is nonsense. Like Westinghouse, GE, Hitachi et al who are all building power stations as fast as they can in China? Those private companies? The US wind energy lobby group's website claims $100bn invested in wind power since 2008 for an installed capacity of 40GW or ~13GW real intermittent power; that makes Areva's EPR look like a bargain. Some other figures; the UN identify 49GW of wind power and 46GW of solar installed globally in 2014. That wind power is really ~16GW of useful power and the solar ~7GW. In 2014 China built 39GW of coal power alone, never mind nuclear or gas or anything the rest of the world built.t to dig through to get at them. Unfortunately this does apply to all parties.
t and fewer machine guns. There might be fish to eat though, their fishing policy's not completely crazy.speedy_thrills said:
Blaster72 said:
I've just had my local Green Party nutcase drop a leaflet through, apparently they will build 500,000 new social homes by 2020. That's 100,000 a year every year or 270 each and every day. How the heck are they going to do that??
With bricks, wood and nails I'd imagine. The UK built ~300,000 houses/year post WW2 for decades. With the increase in population since, mechanisation, technology etc. it doesn't look massively ambitious.te and was lucky to provide 10 years of reasonable habitation; some real turds were uninhabitable before they were even handed to luckless council tenants. 100k units a year added to renovation of sound but tired existing housing stock would be a more realistic target. It's probably possible to do 300k but doing so will result in the building trade going over a cliff a few years hence.speedy_thrills said:
Blaster72 said:
They're also going to phase out fossil fuel and nuclear power generation - no suggestion of how to replace it.
Alternatives probably, the world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. When you look at the nuclear situation it's taking subsidies and price guarantees to get any private company interested in operating a plant.IainT said:
The Greens have a while swathe of policy that I completely agree with, far more so than any other UK party. That's the issues surrounding secularism/humanism, removal of religious privilege and denial of public funding to religious groups for furthering religious agenda.
Barring a few Independents running on a god-bothering ticket the party I'm furthest from on this issue is the Conservatives who I'm most likely to vote for.
That's because, of all the issues out there, this is one I'm prepared to compromise on - I'm fairly certain that a vote Green or Labour (a close second to green on those issues) would do more damage to the country than good.
If you honestly look at all policies of all parties you're likely to find good and bad in all of them.
This is pretty true; there are nuggets of common sense in their policies, but there's a lot of sBarring a few Independents running on a god-bothering ticket the party I'm furthest from on this issue is the Conservatives who I'm most likely to vote for.
That's because, of all the issues out there, this is one I'm prepared to compromise on - I'm fairly certain that a vote Green or Labour (a close second to green on those issues) would do more damage to the country than good.
If you honestly look at all policies of all parties you're likely to find good and bad in all of them.
t to dig through to get at them. Unfortunately this does apply to all parties.Well I suppose the most productive approach here would be to reveal our sources of information:
A depressing proportion of the housing built post war was utter ste and was lucky to provide 10 years of reasonable habitation; some real turds were uninhabitable before they were even handed to luckless council tenants. 100k units a year added to renovation of sound but tired existing housing stock would be a more realistic target. It's probably possible to do 300k but doing so will result in the building trade going over a cliff a few years hence. My thinking was influenced by comments from this BBC article:
That is nonsense. Like Westinghouse, GE, Hitachi et al who are all building power stations as fast as they can in China? Those private companies? The US wind energy lobby group's website claims $100bn invested in wind power since 2008 for an installed capacity of 40GW or ~13GW real intermittent power; that makes Areva's EPR look like a bargain. Some other figures; the UN identify 49GW of wind power and 46GW of solar installed globally in 2014. That wind power is really ~16GW of useful power and the solar ~7GW. In 2014 China built 39GW of coal power alone, never mind nuclear or gas or anything the rest of the world built. My view was influenced by this Bloomberg segment:
hidetheelephants said:
speedy_thrills said:
Blaster72 said:
I've just had my local Green Party nutcase drop a leaflet through, apparently they will build 500,000 new social homes by 2020. That's 100,000 a year every year or 270 each and every day. How the heck are they going to do that??
With bricks, wood and nails I'd imagine. The UK built ~300,000 houses/year post WW2 for decades. With the increase in population since, mechanisation, technology etc. it doesn't look massively ambitious.te and was lucky to provide 10 years of reasonable habitation; some real turds were uninhabitable before they were even handed to luckless council tenants. 100k units a year added to renovation of sound but tired existing housing stock would be a more realistic target. It's probably possible to do 300k but doing so will result in the building trade going over a cliff a few years hence.BBC and BOEs Mark Carney said:
For decades after World War Two the UK used to build more than 300,000 new homes a year.
...
Last year the figure recovered slightly to 141,000 homes. Labour's 2007 target has been dropped by the coalition.
In May 2014, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, complained that housebuilding in the UK was half that of his native Canada, despite the UK having a population twice the size.
...
Last year the figure recovered slightly to 141,000 homes. Labour's 2007 target has been dropped by the coalition.
In May 2014, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, complained that housebuilding in the UK was half that of his native Canada, despite the UK having a population twice the size.
hidetheelephants said:
speedy_thrills said:
Blaster72 said:
They're also going to phase out fossil fuel and nuclear power generation - no suggestion of how to replace it.
Alternatives probably, the world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. When you look at the nuclear situation it's taking subsidies and price guarantees to get any private company interested in operating a plant.Bloomberg said:
The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined.
...
The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels...
The information about subsidies being paid for Hinkley C as well as a guaranteed minimum energy price are readily available on various websites....
The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels...
handpaper said:
If, like Americans, Canadians think twenty years is a good lifetime for a house, Mr Carney is probably right.
eyeonhousing.com said:
According to the latest data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development American Housing Survey (AHS), the median age of an owner-occupied home in the United States was 35 years old as of the 2011 survey. The median age reported in the 1985 AHS was only 23 years old.
Looks to me like U.S. houses are lasting well for houses only supposed to last 20 years 
. In some New England states the average appears to be over 50 years now.speedy_thrills said:
Blaster72 said:
I've just had my local Green Party nutcase drop a leaflet through, apparently they will build 500,000 new social homes by 2020. That's 100,000 a year every year or 270 each and every day. How the heck are they going to do that??
With bricks, wood and nails I'd imagine. The UK built ~300,000 houses/year post WW2 for decades. With the increase in population since, mechanisation, technology etc. it doesn't look massively ambitious.Some bricks we ordered are on a 44 week lead time.
It the same for many trades and materials, construction in the UK is now booming after the biggest crash the industry has ever seen and we simply don't have enough people & materials to cope with the demand now, so for a party to claim they will massively increase house building, overnight, is wrong, it won't happen, not unless we start increasing training which is something the Tories are talking about with apprentices.
That's not to say we can't build 300k homes a year, but it'll take a few things to happen at Governemnt level and for me there's only the Torys & UKIP making the right noises.
speedy_thrills said:
The information about subsidies being paid for Hinkley C as well as a guaranteed minimum energy price are readily available on various websites.
you really take stated generation capacity of renewables from the bbc as gospel ? it has been shown time and time again that the stated generation capacity of wind and solar power are out by a large factor when actually measured after installation.hidetheelephants said:
That is nonsense. Like Westinghouse, GE, Hitachi et al who are all building power stations as fast as they can in China? Those private companies? The US wind energy lobby group's website claims $100bn invested in wind power since 2008 for an installed capacity of 40GW or ~13GW real intermittent power; that makes Areva's EPR look like a bargain. Some other figures; the UN identify 49GW of wind power and 46GW of solar installed globally in 2014. That wind power is really ~16GW of useful power and the solar ~7GW. In 2014 China built 39GW of coal power alone, never mind nuclear or gas or anything the rest of the world built.
In the period 2010-13 China built 280GW of coal power.The problem with Bloomberg's blurb there is that they, like every media outlet, blithely trot out the installed capacity rather than the useful output; wind built somewhere good will give you about 1/3 of the installed capacity, built somewhere mediocre you get about 1/4. Solar gets between 10 and 20% depending on how near the installation is to the equator and whether it has sun tracking. Citing the installed capacity impresses nobody except people who like numbers in brochures; the 141GW of fossil fuel plant produces 141GW at night, during the day, when it rains, when it's sunny, when there's lots of wind or none. The wind and solar part of the 143GW won't do any of those things; even if the intermittency is ignored the actual power generated will only be ~22GW. The geotherm and biomass may well provide their installed capacity of ~15GW but hydro averages ~60% of installed power, so only 30GW. Then there's the fact they've tucked nuclear into the renewable pile; I agree that it does really belong there, but greens don't by and large. All those capacity factors turn the headline figure of 143GW into a still impressive but more factual ~77GW. Renewables have a way to go.
As for Hinkley C; the billpayer is being soaked, but not as much as he's being soaked for wind and solar. I hope whichever idiot gets into No10 will strike a harder bargain with Westinghouse and Hitachi when those negotiations start.
wc98 said:
you really take stated generation capacity of renewables from the bbc as gospel ? it has been shown time and time again that the stated generation capacity of wind and solar power are out by a large factor when actually measured after installation.
This. It's like buying a car and expecting to achieve the quoted MPGFoppo said:
Just my take on Global warming/Climate change whatever it is called.If the majority of scientist found proof by various test that we affect the climate.
Who am I to disagree? I am not a scientist are these scientist all liars?
I think this is a classic example of how you're meant to respond to these claims. Who are you to disagree? Who am I to disagree? I am not a scientist are these scientist all liars?
You are someone with a brain, capable of asking questions like what was actually asked to whom? And how does it compare to what I am hearing from politicians and the media?
If you ask a meteorologist if he believes it is possible that human activity has an impact on global climate he is unlikely to say No, ruling it out entirely. Notice that he isn't saying he believes in man made global warming, just that he wouldn't rule it out, which is pretty much how science works. Nor is he directly involved in studying MMGW though he is a scientist, and his field of study involves climate. But any journalist or politician could easily include him in the so called scientific consensus of climate scientists who "back" MMGW.
audidoody said:
A less satirical message about energy, but no less unacceptable to mainstream green politics.AJS- said:
I think this is a classic example of how you're meant to respond to these claims. Who are you to disagree?
You are someone with a brain, capable of asking questions like what was actually asked to whom? And how does it compare to what I am hearing from politicians and the media?
Erm, you're missing the fundamental point that almost all the critics of the AGW theory are not the people studying the climate. They are politicians and media. Your point is absolutely valid but facing the wrong direction. You are someone with a brain, capable of asking questions like what was actually asked to whom? And how does it compare to what I am hearing from politicians and the media?
AJS- said:
If you ask a meteorologist if he believes it is possible that human activity has an impact on global climate he is unlikely to say No, ruling it out entirely. Notice that he isn't saying he believes in man made global warming, just that he wouldn't rule it out, which is pretty much how science works. Nor is he directly involved in studying MMGW though he is a scientist, and his field of study involves climate. But any journalist or politician could easily include him in the so called scientific consensus of climate scientists who "back" MMGW.
That's all true (apart from the last bit) but, again, it's irrelevant in this case because the people who do study the climate largely agree on the AGW theory. The only people who vehemently don't agree tend to be people on internet forums, politicians, oil companies, geography teachers and selective media. In fact, this is exactly the reason I changed my view on this subject; whilst trying to win an argument on the internet, I realised I couldn't find anyone who actually studied the climate who didn't agree with AGW. I found lots of people who disagreed with it but none of them had any relevant qualifications.
And btw, the "who are you to disagree" attitude is entirely valid. When a paleontologist tells me that dinsoaurs had feathers, I accept that they have probably done a bit of work on the matter and that I don't really have any basis on which to dispute it. It's exactly the same with AGW.
Foppo said:
Just my take on Global warming/Climate change whatever it is called.If the majority of scientist found proof by various test that we affect the climate.
Who am I to disagree? I am not a scientist are these scientist all liars? Maybe the only prove the layman or women can go by some of the illnesses people have.
The question to ask is what proof has been found? The issue with global warming isn't that we might be affecting the planets climate, it's to what extent and how serious it might be and the key point is that nobody knows. We've never done this before and there is no experiment you can do to tell you the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.Who am I to disagree? I am not a scientist are these scientist all liars? Maybe the only prove the layman or women can go by some of the illnesses people have.
All we have are a bunch of computer models that tell us terrible things will happen and so far every one of those models has completely failed to predict anything correctly. Climate science is nothing but a long and ever growing list of failed predictions but the scientists have to stand by them because there are a heck of a lot of reputations and indeed money hanging on this.
durbster said:
Erm, you're missing the fundamental point that almost all the critics of the AGW theory are not the people studying the climate. They are politicians and media. Your point is absolutely valid but facing the wrong direction.
I am sceptical about AGW, but tbh it doesn't matter; the engineering aspects of combatting(or not) AGW are the only bits which really interest me, and no-one is actually doing very much to combat CO2 emissions. What we have instead is a bizarre cargo cult involving snake oil salemen flogging windmills and solar panels to mugs. I have to conclude that it's a scam, or our political leaders are also mugs(or in on the scam). Physics is a cruel mistress and is not susceptible to bullst.Durbster
There are scientists who dispute it,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas for one.
But my original point was that it is not the number of scientists on each side which determines the validity of the science behind it.
As for "who are you" I'm not going to come out and contradict your paleontologist with his feathered dinosaur view but if I was interested I could certainly ask a few questions like why do you think so? How confident are you of this? Are there other valid explanations for the apparently feathered dinosaurs? All dinosaurs or some? Everywhere? Did they lose or develop feathers at a certain point?
It is possible to be critical and sceptical without deep knowledge of the specific subject, even if a majority of paleontologists belive so. For something like global warming where huge money and political power are at stake, and generous funding streams dependent upon the answer then it is a good idea to be so in my opinion.
There are scientists who dispute it,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas for one.
But my original point was that it is not the number of scientists on each side which determines the validity of the science behind it.
As for "who are you" I'm not going to come out and contradict your paleontologist with his feathered dinosaur view but if I was interested I could certainly ask a few questions like why do you think so? How confident are you of this? Are there other valid explanations for the apparently feathered dinosaurs? All dinosaurs or some? Everywhere? Did they lose or develop feathers at a certain point?
It is possible to be critical and sceptical without deep knowledge of the specific subject, even if a majority of paleontologists belive so. For something like global warming where huge money and political power are at stake, and generous funding streams dependent upon the answer then it is a good idea to be so in my opinion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff