Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, right, you missed the plight of elderely people who died because they had to choose between heat and food, then? Due to the high cost of energy, part of which is the high cost of renewables.
44,000 died in 2014.
No need to look in the Mail, most of the media covered it.
And it was conicidental that the highest wholesale gas prices over the last 5 years was the winter of 2014?44,000 died in 2014.
No need to look in the Mail, most of the media covered it.
http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/gas/historic-price-...
Could you possibly accept that may have more to do with it than some land owners that had combined had less than 10% of the UK power generation via wind power ?
Open to even the concept that fluctuation in whole gas affects the price of energy ?
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Tuesday 25th April 16:32
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, right, you missed the plight of elderely people who died because they had to choose between heat and food, then? Due to the high cost of energy, part of which is the high cost of renewables.
44,000 died in 2014.
How big a part?44,000 died in 2014.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
You seem to be implying that Offshore windymills have nothing to do with the "green levies" on the back of my energy bills? Strange that.....oh wait a moment i get it
Who is the landowner for Offshore ?It was your peer that said the landowners killed 44,000 pensioners
I think he's an idiot making that claim.
I said the high cost of renewables played a part in the deaths of 44,000 people.
PS..did someone here question that figure? If so, go to the government. Their figure.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
MyBrainHurts
Tell the truth now- when you posted above about it all being true, not daily Mail etc- did you know about the wholesale gas prices, and in particular the spike in 2014 winter months
As I say - please tell the truth, as it is important in the strength of your credibility.
Yes or no?
No from me but so what? It's been an issue for years before 2014 .......Tell the truth now- when you posted above about it all being true, not daily Mail etc- did you know about the wholesale gas prices, and in particular the spike in 2014 winter months
As I say - please tell the truth, as it is important in the strength of your credibility.
Yes or no?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15359312
And that's from Auntie Beeb so must be true
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Great numbers.
290Bn dollars and "worth millions of pounds".
After many years of reading puff piece PR output from all sorts of industries I can tell that this is a mainstream example. Feelgood stuff for those who don't need detail.
"Please Civil Servants, make us a special case for a position at the trough ...."
Had the world's politicians not decided to follow some self imposed self destructive policies the existing UK based technology companies were already well placed to ply their trade and experience around the world. Still, why not destroy those and the jobs they provided then claim the creation of new jobs in a new market where the balance of fiscal power has shifted?
If I were still a credulous youth I would probably see this plea as a glowing reference for my generation.
Ah, those were the days - as every generation can eventually understand.
Still, at least, Paddy, you have saved me the effort of doing some detailed research to create a post with verifiable numbers in it. It's clear you don't have any yourself and so any response would be mere arm flailing. Windmilling if you prefer the term.
290Bn dollars and "worth millions of pounds".
After many years of reading puff piece PR output from all sorts of industries I can tell that this is a mainstream example. Feelgood stuff for those who don't need detail.
"Please Civil Servants, make us a special case for a position at the trough ...."
Had the world's politicians not decided to follow some self imposed self destructive policies the existing UK based technology companies were already well placed to ply their trade and experience around the world. Still, why not destroy those and the jobs they provided then claim the creation of new jobs in a new market where the balance of fiscal power has shifted?
If I were still a credulous youth I would probably see this plea as a glowing reference for my generation.
Ah, those were the days - as every generation can eventually understand.
Still, at least, Paddy, you have saved me the effort of doing some detailed research to create a post with verifiable numbers in it. It's clear you don't have any yourself and so any response would be mere arm flailing. Windmilling if you prefer the term.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No need to make it personal, or am I allowed to through insults your way too ?
If it's simply a matter of you being a cynical dinosaur then I wouldn't have wasted energies trying to inform you when asking questions.
You appeared to have an element of interest.
As above like Turbotroll, you're the type to refute ANY facts, inputs, data regardless of source if against your belief - an unwillingness to learn Old Dog huh?
So it's seems, We are done here too.
If it's simply a matter of you being a cynical dinosaur then I wouldn't have wasted energies trying to inform you when asking questions.
You appeared to have an element of interest.
As above like Turbotroll, you're the type to refute ANY facts, inputs, data regardless of source if against your belief - an unwillingness to learn Old Dog huh?
So it's seems, We are done here too.
You previously made it personal several posts and a number of pages ago - not much point in asking permission now.
In any case, if you think my comment was "personal" to you in an unreasonably negative way ... I have to ask "why?".
You have constantly offered the opinion that real costs are coming down in the renewables sector but have never offered a proper substantial source , in my opinion.
So we go round and round in the discussion getting nowhere yet you still persist in saying renewable are wonderful land getting incredibly inexpensive without offering substantial proof - and no, bid prices on the continent with a large range offered and obscured infromation about what the bids actually cover does not, to my way of thinking, offer anything of substance. In fact just the opposite. I start to wonder what is being buried. It's age thing you see. Been there before many times.
So I simply ask for your opinion on the reality of costs - especially additional costs - related to the claims of hundreds of thousands of jobs. It's something that, as I recall, you have been happy to tout as a huge benefit for supporting the additional costs of the industry in which you say you work. (I'll accept that you do despite no evidence. It seems not to be an important issue here.)
It really does not matter whether you are in the industry or not. The macro economic picture is simple. If you have to pay out more to get the same or less the deal struck is likely not good value. In the case of "renewable" energy, add in intermittency and it's really poor value. In my opinion.
Having simplified the question I provided you with a platform to promote the benefits and/or debunk my proposed numbers.
You offer nothing, say "we are done" and duck out making a few more personal comments on the way.
Oh well, it would have been rather good to have someone with some real inside knowledge and understanding of the way this new politically driven industry is likely to go in the future, joining in the exchanges. You seemed to be suggesting you might be that person. It seems you are not.
As for judging whether I refute facts and all the other comments in your final diatribe .... who could judge? You have not offered anything of substance that might be classified as a fact. Don't claim you have tried to inform people. You really haven't even if you think you have, unless you think partisan industry press releases are all that is required for evidence of indisputable facts. I didn't see you as being that naive. Was I wrong in that too?
I don't mind being insulted in a debate, it's been a common factor for years if one ventures anywhere near the AGW partisan blogs and forums. But at least in those places one is being insulted by someone of substance fond of spouting facts and figures that they have found somewhere or made up themselves so that they have number to spout.
Good luck with your career Paddy. You will probably get a good 20 year run before it runs out of political steam. Depending in your current age that might be enough I suppose, though I suspect you could experience some strange times on that journey and a result that you don't foresee today.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 25th April 18:08
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I honesty- I don't know, but will check.
Just getting off a train at the mo
The projects (not scheduled for construction for some time, but now designed and being prepared in earnest) have been agreed / approved at a price that is able to sell without 'top up' if you will, so they did not have to go cap in hand beyond the current taxation / credits or whatever to make the project viable
Will revert when I find out for you.
I am just asking if the taxation is then provided back, is that not like a subsidy? Just getting off a train at the mo
The projects (not scheduled for construction for some time, but now designed and being prepared in earnest) have been agreed / approved at a price that is able to sell without 'top up' if you will, so they did not have to go cap in hand beyond the current taxation / credits or whatever to make the project viable
Will revert when I find out for you.
Phud said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I honesty- I don't know, but will check.
Just getting off a train at the mo
The projects (not scheduled for construction for some time, but now designed and being prepared in earnest) have been agreed / approved at a price that is able to sell without 'top up' if you will, so they did not have to go cap in hand beyond the current taxation / credits or whatever to make the project viable
Will revert when I find out for you.
I am just asking if the taxation is then provided back, is that not like a subsidy? Just getting off a train at the mo
The projects (not scheduled for construction for some time, but now designed and being prepared in earnest) have been agreed / approved at a price that is able to sell without 'top up' if you will, so they did not have to go cap in hand beyond the current taxation / credits or whatever to make the project viable
Will revert when I find out for you.
In 2015-16 more than 90 million Renewables Obligation Certificates were issued at a cost of just over £44 each. Industry insiders might like to explain who pays this cost. Then we have the FIT schemes. The gravy train rolls on and costs to customers go on rising. Pointless green levies are already adding £112 to energy bills.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
No from me but so what?
Well, it clearly proves you jump on a band wagon and jeeer - without knowing why.It was explicit in the original trace of dying pensioners that the Land Owners rape coin in were to blameand you played along with the crowd.
Did you say who the LandOwners were offshore making a fortune too? or was that another silly mistake of yours?
And as far as the "snide comments" etc. I think you'll find you are well ahead on that score "f
kknuckle" .... oops that narrowing the score by one Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
No it wasn't as already pointed out to you.
You sure about that?turbobloke said:
What cost is coming down - the cost of electricity to the consumer, or the actual lifecycle cost of all the UK's windymills, or both? Or neither.
You've already shown insider knowledge by not being able to cost turbines from extraction to decommissioning. Criticising others is a bit rich, like the wealthy land-owners hosting turbines - and other renewables industry graspers - who have enjoyed £££ benefiting from freezing pensioners and general taxpayer largesse. They're not just a bit more rich these days.
That says Land Owners to me. You've already shown insider knowledge by not being able to cost turbines from extraction to decommissioning. Criticising others is a bit rich, like the wealthy land-owners hosting turbines - and other renewables industry graspers - who have enjoyed £££ benefiting from freezing pensioners and general taxpayer largesse. They're not just a bit more rich these days.
Article on UK energy cost scandal said:
Workers at one charity shop in Swansea, in south Wales, described how the most vulnerable shoppers were seeking out thick books such as encyclopaedias for a few pence.
One assistant said: ‘Book burning seems terribly wrong but we have to get rid of unsold stock for pennies and some of the pensioners say the books make ideal slow-burning fuel for fires and stoves.
A lot of them buy up large hardback volumes so they can stick them in the fire to last all night.
One assistant said: ‘Book burning seems terribly wrong but we have to get rid of unsold stock for pennies and some of the pensioners say the books make ideal slow-burning fuel for fires and stoves.
A lot of them buy up large hardback volumes so they can stick them in the fire to last all night.
Another article on the UK energy cost scandal said:
SamCam's wealthy father nets £350,000 per year from subsidised wind farm
Meanwhile the Renweables Obligation was adding ~£30 to household energy bills by 2015. Kerching. Bring on Brexit.robinessex said:
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
I have no idea. Is 1 death sufficient for you?
I was just clarifying that you didn't have the information to make any sort of point, but made it anyway. Just to be clear for durby, I had a point and I made it. I regret I can do nothing to aid your comprehension of the English language, sorry.
robinessex said:
Very pleased that windy things are adding 100,000's of jobs. We need them
Hmm.If you believe the Grauniad it may not be that jobs are in particularly short supply. The number presumably factor on the effect os the black market and immigration over the past decade.
But it may be that inflation is increasing and part of that additional cost will be taxes presented as service costs in the energy industry, the majority of which are not luxury options for most people but a basic need to live some sort of reasonable life in the modern world where the government even expects people to pay for internet connections (and the expensive electricity required to run it) to communicate with "the authorities".
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/15/uk...
The Albert Gore Mob wants $15 trillion to be spent fghting non-existent manmade global warming. Well, who wouldn't if you could get it...possibly better informed decent folks for starters.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-gro...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-gro...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff