The green party manifesto how stupid can humans be
Discussion
SO an increase in fuel tax, lots of environmentally unfreindly wind turbines, allowing people to put solar panels anywhere and making roads safer for pedestrians? (Are roads for pedestrians?) Tax the rich and hand the money to chavs to squander. All this designed to appeal to left wing morons and guardian readers. Do these enemies of humanity have any chance of gettign an MP on may 5th. If so, is this a good thing as it breaks the Labour party into its constituent parts? Will the Labour party still continue with its sillier policies to try to attract the sandalist vote and prevent the election of Green slime.
Why do the BBC give so much publicity to such a tiny political party?
Why do the BBC give so much publicity to such a tiny political party?
SuckMyChrsitmas said:
Why are you opposed to wind turbines, NoneGreen? (Just curious.) How would you suggest we lower the UK's levels of CO2 emmissions? (Wave power? Hydro-electric damns? etc.) Are you opposed to renewable energy sources as a whole, or just wind turbines?
Not that there's much need for us to lower CO2 as we're just a drop in the ocean. How about we all stop breathing? that might lower CO2 for a while.
SuckMyChrsitmas said:
Why are you opposed to wind turbines, NoneGreen? (Just curious.) How would you suggest we lower the UK's levels of CO2 emmissions? (Wave power? Hydro-electric damns? etc.) Are you opposed to renewable energy sources as a whole, or just wind turbines?
I think the question is.. do we really need to?!
How much CO2 does a nuclear power plant give off?
Wind power is OK in some places, but not everywhere!
SuckMyChrsitmas said:
Why are you opposed to wind turbines, NoneGreen? (Just curious.) How would you suggest we lower the UK's levels of CO2 emmissions? (Wave power? Hydro-electric damns? etc.) Are you opposed to renewable energy sources as a whole, or just wind turbines?
Wind turbines take over 100 years to ROI in terms of the energy used to smelt the aluminum to build them.
They also have a shelf life of less than 100 years.
Ergo they are a pointless invention.
nonegreen said:
increase in fuel tax,
lots of environmentally unfreindly wind turbines, allowing people to put solar panels anywhere
making roads safer for pedestrians?
Err nongreen - accept that pollitically you're slightly on the RHS of Atilla the Hun, but take a look at your statments above?
OK Increase in fuel tax = bad - we'd all agree on that one with you I'm sure.
'envionmentally unfriendly wind turbines'?
not sure I agree - surely as a PHer the more electricity that is generated for us locally the less oil we use for heating / lighting etc (Esp in rural areas) - therefore = cheaper petrolchemical prices as demand falls...
solar pannels - ditto - surely generating your own electricity is a better idea than paying someone else for theirs? OK I know the payoffs of solar panels are around the 20 year mark - but a lot of people live in their houses for 20 years+ and in time many would replace their roof tiels once anyway - so why not ahve solar panels if its cheaper for you in the long run? Whats so terrible?
making roads safe for pedestrians - I agree that the green party would probably do this in a pointless way by attempting to lower speed limits to 4mph and causing cars to strap pillows to their front bumpers, but the premise itself isn't a bad one.. Surely better barriers to keep people _off_ roads (eg near schools) would consitute the same thing and be something we'd all welcome as responsible motorists?
Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not a green party supporter at all, but I fail to see how terrible these things are without a reasoned argument backing up your comments!!
Plotloss said:
Wind turbines take over 100 years to ROI in terms of the energy used to smelt the aluminum to build them.
They also have a shelf life of less than 100 years.
now thats my kind of argument matt
Hmmm wonder if they could make em from carbon fibre instead - they'd look much cooler too
Nuclear power for me. The lesser of two evils, environmentally speaking.
Are 2CVs still the chariot of choice for Greenies? Ironic if so, given their un-green-ness. Here in Bristol, favoured Council employees seem to be issued with harmless-looking plastic eco-cars, the sort that reinforce knicker elastic at 500 yards.
Are 2CVs still the chariot of choice for Greenies? Ironic if so, given their un-green-ness. Here in Bristol, favoured Council employees seem to be issued with harmless-looking plastic eco-cars, the sort that reinforce knicker elastic at 500 yards.
Plotloss said:
Wind turbines take over 100 years to ROI in terms of the energy used to smelt the aluminum to build them.
They also have a shelf life of less than 100 years.
Ergo they are a pointless invention.
I'm not sure about that figure - what does it actually mean? If you're saying they cost approx 100 times more to make than the value of the power they generate in a year, doesn't that depend on the relative costs of the energy ('fuel burned') to make them, and the energy they supply? It sounds like a rather meaningless statistic made up by someone who opposes wind farms.
How many years does it take to replace the oil we burn?
Also, if it's really the case that it takes 100 years for ROI, and they don't last 100 years (most governments would never look more than 20years into the future these days anyway), what economic factor makes people build them?
Personally, I rather like windmills. Not so bothered with the green party though...
Worlds most effecient wind turbine weighs almost 300 tonne and is made of 90% aluminium.
Google will tell you how much energy it takes to smelt 1kg of ally.
I can find you the figures on the output of the turbine.
The reason people build them?
The public dont understand the maths, the environmentalists pressure government and business to shell out for these bloody monstrosities and someone therefore makes them, for a handsome profit.
Theres your motive.
Google will tell you how much energy it takes to smelt 1kg of ally.
I can find you the figures on the output of the turbine.
The reason people build them?
The public dont understand the maths, the environmentalists pressure government and business to shell out for these bloody monstrosities and someone therefore makes them, for a handsome profit.
Theres your motive.
Tuna said:
I'm not sure about that figure - what does it actually mean? If you're saying they cost approx 100 times more to make than the value of the power they generate in a year, doesn't that depend on the relative costs of the energy ('fuel burned') to make them, and the energy they supply? It sounds like a rather meaningless statistic made up by someone who opposes wind farms.
How many years does it take to replace the oil we burn?
Also, if it's really the case that it takes 100 years for ROI, and they don't last 100 years (most governments would never look more than 20years into the future these days anyway), what economic factor makes people build them?
Personally, I rather like windmills. Not so bothered with the green party though...
I think the argument is that it takes x kilo Watt hours of electricity to power the smelters etc involved in the process of building them, and it takes 100 years for a windmill to produce x kWh. And they don't last 100 years. Ergo there is no point building them because it takes more energy to produce one than you'll ever get back.
And the reason people build them? Grants most likely.
Plotloss said:
One could save oil but not needlessly manufacturing things in plastic.
Why oh why did clothes pegs need:
a) to be fitted with springs
b) be replaced with plastic ones fitted with springs
c) be replace with plastic ones without springs
I just dont understand.
Course not _needed_ but cost to carve wooden ones > cost to produce cheap crap plasic ones in a mould at 3,000,000 an hour.... Therefore joe public buys cheap plastic clothes pegs (regularly cos they snap / break more easily than wooden ones).
We're almost coming across as anti capitalist!!!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff