FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Starmer’s £28 billion green flip flop
Starmer’s £28 billion green flip flop
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government." Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.  | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government." Yes, he's scared if he does anything for the environment that also brings down energy costs that he won't get the funding from that sector for the Labour party. Politics in this country is broken. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished. "I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon. Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment. "All energy is sold at market value on an exchange dictated by the spot price, cheap energy is an illusion. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All energy is sold at market value on an exchange dictated by the spot price, cheap energy is an illusion."Here is a guaranteed way to get the population in on the net zero agenda, A 2-3mwh wind turbine costs around 2-3 million to buy and install connected to the grid which will power around 1500 homes, at 3 million 1500 energy users would need to put in £2000 investment to get in on the act of the green agenda and real cheap energy from your own wind turbine. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment. "What are these fossil fuel subsidies? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
What are these fossil fuel subsidies? "direct transfers: direct expenditures by governments to recipients, which could be either consumers or producers; tax expenditures: the amounts of tax benefits, or preferences, received by taxpayers and forgone by governments; income or price support mechanisms: various types of economic mechanisms, most of which can be considered cross-subsidies, i.e. involve transferring amounts of money from groups of people/technology/territory to another specific group; RD&D budgets: various types of provisions for financial and/or other preferential mechanisms to support innovation. | |||
| |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
What are these fossil fuel subsidies?
direct transfers: direct expenditures by governments to recipients, which could be either consumers or producers;
tax expenditures: the amounts of tax benefits, or preferences, received by taxpayers and forgone by governments;
income or price support mechanisms: various types of economic mechanisms, most of which can be considered cross-subsidies, i.e. involve transferring amounts of money from groups of people/technology/territory to another specific group;
RD&D budgets: various types of provisions for financial and/or other preferential mechanisms to support innovation."Our government is paying towards the fossil fuel industries R&D? What do we get in return? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
What are these fossil fuel subsidies?
direct transfers: direct expenditures by governments to recipients, which could be either consumers or producers;
tax expenditures: the amounts of tax benefits, or preferences, received by taxpayers and forgone by governments;
income or price support mechanisms: various types of economic mechanisms, most of which can be considered cross-subsidies, i.e. involve transferring amounts of money from groups of people/technology/territory to another specific group;
RD&D budgets: various types of provisions for financial and/or other preferential mechanisms to support innovation.
Our government is paying towards the fossil fuel industries R&D? What do we get in return?"Not sure why you're asking about our government. That's not what I'm talking about. But if you want to know that stuff, I'm sure you can find out. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
What are these fossil fuel subsidies?
direct transfers: direct expenditures by governments to recipients, which could be either consumers or producers;
tax expenditures: the amounts of tax benefits, or preferences, received by taxpayers and forgone by governments;
income or price support mechanisms: various types of economic mechanisms, most of which can be considered cross-subsidies, i.e. involve transferring amounts of money from groups of people/technology/territory to another specific group;
RD&D budgets: various types of provisions for financial and/or other preferential mechanisms to support innovation.
Our government is paying towards the fossil fuel industries R&D? What do we get in return?
Not sure why you're asking about our government. That's not what I'm talking about.
But if you want to know that stuff, I'm sure you can find out."I’m curious why you trot out the fossil fuel subsidies quote at every opportunity. I’ve read about some subsidies, but that doesn’t really line up with what you’re saying | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
What are these fossil fuel subsidies?
direct transfers: direct expenditures by governments to recipients, which could be either consumers or producers;
tax expenditures: the amounts of tax benefits, or preferences, received by taxpayers and forgone by governments;
income or price support mechanisms: various types of economic mechanisms, most of which can be considered cross-subsidies, i.e. involve transferring amounts of money from groups of people/technology/territory to another specific group;
RD&D budgets: various types of provisions for financial and/or other preferential mechanisms to support innovation.
Our government is paying towards the fossil fuel industries R&D? What do we get in return?
Not sure why you're asking about our government. That's not what I'm talking about.
But if you want to know that stuff, I'm sure you can find out.
I’m curious why you trot out the fossil fuel subsidies quote at every opportunity.
I’ve read about some subsidies, but that doesn’t really line up with what you’re saying"What is it that you're reading that doesn't line up with the subsidies being paid to get he fossil fuels industry? | |||
| |||
"And whats scary is that most of you will be voting for him knowing that his likely to be even worse then the Tories " ‘Knowing’? I can’t even fathom the idea of less competent govt. than we’ve had since 2017 (and that’s being generous, because they’ve been incompetent since 2010) | |||
"And whats scary is that most of you will be voting for him knowing that his likely to be even worse then the Tories " Can you give an example of what would be worse than the Tories? Policy, rhetoric, narcissism, nepotism, etc. what would be worse? | |||
"And whats scary is that most of you will be voting for him knowing that his likely to be even worse then the Tories Can you give an example of what would be worse than the Tories? Policy, rhetoric, narcissism, nepotism, etc. what would be worse?" Economic meltdown A crackdown on free speech Further intrusion into our individual freedom to choose how we live our lives. All of these things are a dead cert under Labour. | |||
| |||
"Its my civil duty to tell you guys what to expect from Labour if they were to be in Government and it won't be sunshine and rainbows" Do tell us then. Don’t talk in riddles - what are Starmer’s labour planning? | |||
| |||
"Lets start with the stifling and annoying political correctness also known as woke. It will reach new heights in the hands of Keir Starmer who's unwilling to define what a woman is and takes the knee to latest divisive woke cause. Strikes that we already suffered will get worse giving the Union Barons bankroll the Labour Party. Borrowing and the National Debt wont fall because the public sector will expect a cash bonanza if Labour get in. Why? because those working in the public sector are Labours electoral constituencies." There’s that word again - woke. Have you defined it yet? Also, if the unions are pally with Labour, why would there be more strikes? (Labour will IMO make a sensible choice on rail strikes and allow individual TOCS to negotiate with their staff, rather than avoiding negotiations at a national level as the DFT have done) I reckon you’re talking abject nonsense. If I was the prime minister, I’d bet you a grand that you’re wrong. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Lets start with the stifling and annoying political correctness also known as woke. It will reach new heights in the hands of Keir Starmer who's unwilling to define what a woman is and takes the knee to latest divisive woke cause. Strikes that we already suffered will get worse giving the Union Barons bankroll the Labour Party. Borrowing and the National Debt wont fall because the public sector will expect a cash bonanza if Labour get in. Why? because those working in the public sector are Labours electoral constituencies." So less racism. Less transphobia. More kindness. More strikes because workers aren't treated as badly (not sure i can see your logic here). And some weird assumptions about the public sector. I'll be honest, I'm not going to vote labour, but these are not on my agenda for potential problems we'll face with them in power. | |||
"Now Im not sure what people opinions on Brexit is but to those who affocated for Brexit, its unlikely to be safe in the hands from a man who campaigned for a secound referendum. " How could Brexit be any worse? | |||
"Now Im not sure what people opinions on Brexit is but to those who affocated for Brexit, its unlikely to be safe in the hands from a man who campaigned for a secound referendum. " Given the consistent polling about Brexit, I’d argue that Starmer’s stance (no rejoin, no single market, no customs union) is incorrect - he should be telling the public that we’re going to solve the problems that Brexit has caused. | |||
"Taxes wont go down to any significant extent because Labour dont really believe in low taxes. More often then not they mislead low taxes are trickal down economics which isnt true. Given the state of the country at the moment we're so broke that its likely taxes will go up to fund Labours policies and ambitions. More spending and generous pay rises will mean that inflation currently in retreat will return as a threat." Tax only going down a bit. Surely even if down, that's still good? Isn't it? | |||
| |||
| |||
"And running the country is my greatest concern should Labour prevail. Now one thing I might give Starmer credit for is that he isnt an extremist like Jeremy Corbyn. However if Labour was to win by a majority of 30 seats for example I believe a Labour Government will be ungovernable. Starmer would do secret deals to his rebels within the party which might bring chaos to the country and a shift to the far left politicly. " A 30 seat majority would be a disappointment for Labour, given polling. | |||
| |||
"Now Im not sure what people opinions on Brexit is but to those who affocated for Brexit, its unlikely to be safe in the hands from a man who campaigned for a secound referendum. How could Brexit be any worse?" I didnt say worse it wont be safe | |||
"Now Im not sure what people opinions on Brexit is but to those who affocated for Brexit, its unlikely to be safe in the hands from a man who campaigned for a secound referendum. How could Brexit be any worse? I didnt say worse it wont be safe" Why won’t Brexit be safe? It’s done. We left. | |||
"Now Im not sure what people opinions on Brexit is but to those who affocated for Brexit, its unlikely to be safe in the hands from a man who campaigned for a secound referendum. How could Brexit be any worse? I didnt say worse it wont be safe" Okay, what do you mean by unsafe? | |||
"And running the country is my greatest concern should Labour prevail. Now one thing I might give Starmer credit for is that he isnt an extremist like Jeremy Corbyn. However if Labour was to win by a majority of 30 seats for example I believe a Labour Government will be ungovernable. Starmer would do secret deals to his rebels within the party which might bring chaos to the country and a shift to the far left politicly. " You mean that they might be in danger of making policy that benefits British people and the UK as a whole, instead of themselves, ultra rich and big corporations? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment. "All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on."I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network. Sensible, no? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on."30.2% of our electricity was generated via wind farms in the last year. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
30.2% of our electricity was generated via wind farms in the last year."Trouble is, I, and most civilised people, have become accustomed to having electricity all day every day. Neither wind nor solar will ever satisfy that expectation, particularly as more people are forced to have electricity powered heat pumps and electricity charged vehicles. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no? "Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?"Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy) | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
30.2% of our electricity was generated via wind farms in the last year.
Trouble is, I, and most civilised people, have become accustomed to having electricity all day every day. Neither wind nor solar will ever satisfy that expectation, particularly as more people are forced to have electricity powered heat pumps and electricity charged vehicles."No but a combination of wind, solar, tidal, wave, biogas, in conjunction with storage solutions will do the job. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)"Sorry yes this chap already answered. | |||
| |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered."Name one viable means of storage. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage."Pumped storage. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage."Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage."Maybe you could research ‘storage of renewable energy’ or suchlike, and have a look. It’s quite an interesting topic. I figured that industrial sized batteries were the answer, turns out I was wrong - at least in the long term I will be  | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes? "I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland. What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?"Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind. | |||
| |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind."Ah you're an anti-sciencer! No further questions. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind."You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous. Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions. "Bingo! Full house.... Anti science  Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real, people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real, people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels."We’ve literally just had a poster say that climate change isn’t worth worrying about. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?"Do the scientists say we have to buy a Tesla and a heat pump? What’s going to happen when people just don’t buy them, and European car companies start going bust? Do you think these net zero targets will survive the end of VW? Do you think the net zero targets are going to survive the lights going out? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real,
"The person I replied to just did " people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on.." Evidence suggests otherwise. " Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels." Yes, so you're arguing that we should, or shouldn't push forward with renewables? Because you're kind of saying both here. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
Do the scientists say we have to buy a Tesla and a heat pump?
What’s going to happen when people just don’t buy them, and European car companies start going bust? Do you think these net zero targets will survive the end of VW?
Do you think the net zero targets are going to survive the lights going out?"I was asking a valid question of the poster who said that climate change is going to be insignificant. You could answer it, if you fancy. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
Do the scientists say we have to buy a Tesla and a heat pump?
"Nope " What’s going to happen when people just don’t buy them, and European car companies start going bust? Do you think these net zero targets will survive the end of VW? " You don't need to worry about this fictional scenario. " Do you think the net zero targets are going to survive the lights going out?" Again, you don't need to worry about this because it's not real. Meanwhile our energy bills continue to rise and we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. | |||
| |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real,
The person I replied to just did
people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels.
Yes, so you're arguing that we should, or shouldn't push forward with renewables? Because you're kind of saying both here.
"We will stumble along with half baked renewable solutions for a couple more decades, not really denting the fossil fuels. At this point I expect major advancements in our understandings, especially in photosynthesis and the ability to produce energy from the sun to near 100% efficiency. That or something similar will be the game changer, for mankind. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?"I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies. | |||
"There are nations (with different demographics/populations etc, admittedly) who operate at 95% renewable energy. But sure, it’s impossible. " This is not a sustainable global way forward, a country that is uniquely placed is not the same as a country like the UK in the north, with limited resources and gigantic consumption | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real,
The person I replied to just did
people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels.
Yes, so you're arguing that we should, or shouldn't push forward with renewables? Because you're kind of saying both here.
We will stumble along with half baked renewable solutions for a couple more decades, not really denting the fossil fuels.
At this point I expect major advancements in our understandings, especially in photosynthesis and the ability to produce energy from the sun to near 100% efficiency.
That or something similar will be the game changer, for mankind."Synthetic photosynthesis operates at about 20% efficiency- considerably better than plants, but not near 100% Now that’s not to say that with R&D it couldn’t improve - but that goes for all renewables. Something you’ve been hesitant to accept previously. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies."You’ve not actually answered my question though. What makes you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong? | |||
"There are nations (with different demographics/populations etc, admittedly) who operate at 95% renewable energy. But sure, it’s impossible. " The Dogger Bank produces many times the amount required by the indigenous population, but I, nor anyone else, live there. Which nations are you referring to? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
Do the scientists say we have to buy a Tesla and a heat pump?
What’s going to happen when people just don’t buy them, and European car companies start going bust? Do you think these net zero targets will survive the end of VW?
Do you think the net zero targets are going to survive the lights going out?
I was asking a valid question of the poster who said that climate change is going to be insignificant.
You could answer it, if you fancy."I don’t really care one way or other about “the science” as it isn’t really relevant to the practicalities of what’s achievable. Let’s say the science 100% supports that we are heading for some difficulty, and therefore maybe something should be done. That’s your position I’m assuming. But if what you think needs to be done simply isn’t achievable, isn’t affordable, doesn’t work, what actually is going to happen to your goal? What will happen is what is already happening, it’s starting to fall apart. Isn’t this all the classic case of making perfect the enemy of the good? Western governments are coming up with crazy targets that simply aren’t going to happen. The heat pump thing won’t happen. The ICE car ban will get dumped eventually. We will continue to rely for decades and probably longer on fossil fuels. So where does that leave the targets and how much time and money will have been wasted on this massive misallocation of resources that would have been better spent on incremental and gradual improvements that don’t lay waste to people’s lives? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies.
You’ve not actually answered my question though.
What makes you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong? "The visible evidence. All of the catastrophic predictions have been wrong to date. That will continue. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real,
The person I replied to just did
people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels.
Yes, so you're arguing that we should, or shouldn't push forward with renewables? Because you're kind of saying both here.
We will stumble along with half baked renewable solutions for a couple more decades, not really denting the fossil fuels.
At this point I expect major advancements in our understandings, especially in photosynthesis and the ability to produce energy from the sun to near 100% efficiency.
That or something similar will be the game changer, for mankind.
Synthetic photosynthesis operates at about 20% efficiency- considerably better than plants, but not near 100%
Now that’s not to say that with R&D it couldn’t improve - but that goes for all renewables. Something you’ve been hesitant to accept previously."The advancement will come from photosynthesis, this will answer many world problems, food can be grown in climates it can't grow in now, removing the food limitations of countries in cold and heat extremes. But harnessing the suns energy at near 100% will create a true solar energy solution | |||
"There are nations (with different demographics/populations etc, admittedly) who operate at 95% renewable energy. But sure, it’s impossible. This is not a sustainable global way forward, a country that is uniquely placed is not the same as a country like the UK in the north, with limited resources and gigantic consumption " Limited resources? What’s that’s wet stuff that surrounds the entire U.K.? Or the blustery stuff that flows over hills and mountains? What’s lacking isn’t resources, it’s willpower. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies.
You’ve not actually answered my question though.
What makes you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
The visible evidence. All of the catastrophic predictions have been wrong to date. That will continue."The visible evidence? The visible evidence that backs the climate scientists, you mean? You’re either ignorant in the topic or trolling. The end result is the same. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies."Never debate a science based topic with someone who doesn't know what science is. That's the take away. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real,
The person I replied to just did
people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels.
Yes, so you're arguing that we should, or shouldn't push forward with renewables? Because you're kind of saying both here.
We will stumble along with half baked renewable solutions for a couple more decades, not really denting the fossil fuels.
At this point I expect major advancements in our understandings, especially in photosynthesis and the ability to produce energy from the sun to near 100% efficiency.
That or something similar will be the game changer, for mankind.
Synthetic photosynthesis operates at about 20% efficiency- considerably better than plants, but not near 100%
Now that’s not to say that with R&D it couldn’t improve - but that goes for all renewables. Something you’ve been hesitant to accept previously.
The advancement will come from photosynthesis, this will answer many world problems, food can be grown in climates it can't grow in now, removing the food limitations of countries in cold and heat extremes.
But harnessing the suns energy at near 100% will create a true solar energy solution "Ironically the plants on which we rely, thrive when atmospheric CO2 is 1000ppm, more than double current levels. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies.
Never debate a science based topic with someone who doesn't know what science is.
That's the take away."Ah, we’ve reached the limit of your intellect. Sooner than I’d hoped. Enjoy your fossil fuelled evening and long will it continue  | |||
"There are nations (with different demographics/populations etc, admittedly) who operate at 95% renewable energy. But sure, it’s impossible. This is not a sustainable global way forward, a country that is uniquely placed is not the same as a country like the UK in the north, with limited resources and gigantic consumption Limited resources? What’s that’s wet stuff that surrounds the entire U.K.? Or the blustery stuff that flows over hills and mountains? What’s lacking isn’t resources, it’s willpower." Yes, the resources are limited to the amount of use. Solar is not a good source at present and wind is unpredictable. I have laid out how I see things shaping up, it isn't what you see in the news or on the agenda of climate campaigners, who are shot sighted alarmists. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
Ah you're an anti-sciencer!
No further questions.
Bingo! Full house....
Anti science Nobody is claiming climate change isn't real,
The person I replied to just did
people are saying the reality of the situation is renewables can't keep the lights on..
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Now the hard bit for you to swallow, you are working on rules, models and math that was created recently in what we know today, going forward we will discover better ways of creating and storing energy than we have now, but until then we will be still using fossil fuels.
Yes, so you're arguing that we should, or shouldn't push forward with renewables? Because you're kind of saying both here.
We will stumble along with half baked renewable solutions for a couple more decades, not really denting the fossil fuels.
At this point I expect major advancements in our understandings, especially in photosynthesis and the ability to produce energy from the sun to near 100% efficiency.
That or something similar will be the game changer, for mankind.
Synthetic photosynthesis operates at about 20% efficiency- considerably better than plants, but not near 100%
Now that’s not to say that with R&D it couldn’t improve - but that goes for all renewables. Something you’ve been hesitant to accept previously.
The advancement will come from photosynthesis, this will answer many world problems, food can be grown in climates it can't grow in now, removing the food limitations of countries in cold and heat extremes.
But harnessing the suns energy at near 100% will create a true solar energy solution
Ironically the plants on which we rely, thrive when atmospheric CO2 is 1000ppm, more than double current levels."And that stuff comes out mouths, breathe in breathe out and relax.  | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies.
Never debate a science based topic with someone who doesn't know what science is.
That's the take away.
Ah, we’ve reached the limit of your intellect. Sooner than I’d hoped. Enjoy your fossil fuelled evening and long will it continue "Someone who understands climate science has lesser intelligence? Bizarre. | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government. Net zero is a big cash grab for a project that will never be accomplished.
I mean, the fossil fuels industry receive 100s of billions in subsidies every year. They're not going to give it up anytime soon.
Meanwhile people are freaking out over a couple of quid for a wind farm that would reduce our energy bills and reduce our impact on the environment.
All those wind farms are contributing 6% of our electricity needs this evening. Let’s build 10 times as many so that just over half of us can have the lights on.
I don’t think anyone believes that we can find all our required power through wind alone - but it will form part of a renewable network.
Sensible, no?
Renewable network will source power from what exactly, on those cold windless nights?
Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear will all play their part in the future (storage is key, not the means of creating the energy)
Sorry yes this chap already answered.
Name one viable means of storage.
Pumped storage.
Physics is obviously not your forte. Pumped hydro producing 5% atm. Where do you seriously imagine we are going to build 20 times as many high level lakes?
I'm not a geologist. You asked for a viable means of storage. I gave you one. Where we have one running in Wales and one is proposed in Coire Glas Scotland.
What's your proposal to combat climate change and to remove our reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels?
Unfortunately, as I have a reasonable grasp of physics, I know that large scale electricity storage is not an option. Luckily I know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate. The climate has and will vary, just as it has for many millions of years, largely in the absence of mankind.
You say ‘ know that the small percentage increase of atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on the climate’ - that’s a statement of fact. You’re not ambiguous.
Why are you right and the majority of climate scientists wrong?
I am by no means alone. All of the scientists and government officials on the Maldives must agree with me. They are building ever more airport capacity even though they are just 1.5 m above sea level and aviation is one of the greatest sinners according to the climate disaster doctrine. Even the Artic Ice is chugging alone nicely in the interdecile range, contrary to all the ‘expert’ prophesies.
Never debate a science based topic with someone who doesn't know what science is.
That's the take away.
Ah, we’ve reached the limit of your intellect. Sooner than I’d hoped. Enjoy your fossil fuelled evening and long will it continue
Someone who understands climate science has lesser intelligence?
Bizarre."You continually tell us you understand climate science and call out others who see things differently but you never actually tell us what you understand. Care to educate? | |||
"What’s going on with this? Every day the position seems to change. As usual Starmer seems to want to appeal to everybody, those who want net zero at any cost, and those who prefer some fiscal prudence and are sceptical about the viability of net zero targets. Meanwhile, in the real world, EV sales are collapsing, green businesses are failing, and the EU is rowing back on its agriculture reforms in the face of farmer protests. Not really inspiring much confidence in a potential Labour government." Maybe they are becoming more and more aware at just how dire the country’s finances are? It would be a bit silly to plan to spend money that the current Government is determinedly spunking away as fast as it can. It sounds sensible to re-evaluate plans and options on a regular basis according to the economic situation. | |||
| |||
"It's just been dropped! I pity the fool who sat in front of Kay Burley this morning and stated the exact opposite. Talk about thrown under the bus " m Full story will be out together - I expect the 28bn figure will be erased, whilst the green ‘theme’ ultimately remains in place. Story is that Labour want to be seen as fiscally responsible in the face of potentially hostile/cynical media. | |||
"It's just been dropped! I pity the fool who sat in front of Kay Burley this morning and stated the exact opposite. Talk about thrown under the bus m Full story will be out together - I expect the 28bn figure will be erased, whilst the green ‘theme’ ultimately remains in place. Story is that Labour want to be seen as fiscally responsible in the face of potentially hostile/cynical media." A stack of £50 notes 20 km high is a bit to much for the chap to commit. Bless. | |||
"It's just been dropped! I pity the fool who sat in front of Kay Burley this morning and stated the exact opposite. Talk about thrown under the bus m Full story will be out together - I expect the 28bn figure will be erased, whilst the green ‘theme’ ultimately remains in place. Story is that Labour want to be seen as fiscally responsible in the face of potentially hostile/cynical media." So what’s happening with the “green energy by 2030 pledge now? Is that history too? Looks like Labour are yesterday’s men before they’ve even got into office. | |||
"It's just been dropped! I pity the fool who sat in front of Kay Burley this morning and stated the exact opposite. Talk about thrown under the bus m Full story will be out together - I expect the 28bn figure will be erased, whilst the green ‘theme’ ultimately remains in place. Story is that Labour want to be seen as fiscally responsible in the face of potentially hostile/cynical media. So what’s happening with the “green energy by 2030 pledge now? Is that history too? Looks like Labour are yesterday’s men before they’ve even got into office." We’ll find out tomorrow, won’t we? They’re still winning the election this year regardless. According to sources, the Tories had planned an attack on the 28bn figure today, but Sunak’s little faux-par fucked that off into a hat | |||
"It's just been dropped! I pity the fool who sat in front of Kay Burley this morning and stated the exact opposite. Talk about thrown under the bus " Some are speculating that this policy has been the subject of much disagreement in the shadow cabinet and does now look as those opposed to it have got their way. As far as I know the rest of the green policy remains but the part dropped today was a flag ship one for well over a year | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Its my civil duty to tell you guys what to expect from Labour if they were to be in Government and it won't be sunshine and rainbows" Na mate you can keep your advice Ty.. But it's good to see the youngsters embracing a social responsibility..  | |||
| |||
"So other than dropping the 28bn figure, we are none the wiser. And since the 28bn was never broken down into its component spending, we don’t know the impact. Labour fumbling the grenade " I fear this will be a regular occurrence once in power. They have been allowed to get away with boastful claims with no substance, but as that clock is ticking down to the GE they are finding out they need to start to provide some detail that can be scrutinised. I don't think they have much to offer, but they don't need much to take office. | |||
"Its my civil duty to tell you guys what to expect from Labour if they were to be in Government and it won't be sunshine and rainbows Na mate you can keep your advice Ty.. But it's good to see the youngsters embracing a social responsibility.. "I say what I want even if you dont like it | |||
"Its my civil duty to tell you guys what to expect from Labour if they were to be in Government and it won't be sunshine and rainbows Na mate you can keep your advice Ty.. But it's good to see the youngsters embracing a social responsibility.. I say what I want even if you dont like it"Well done.. | |||
"So other than dropping the 28bn figure, we are none the wiser. And since the 28bn was never broken down into its component spending, we don’t know the impact. Labour fumbling the grenade I fear this will be a regular occurrence once in power. They have been allowed to get away with boastful claims with no substance, but as that clock is ticking down to the GE they are finding out they need to start to provide some detail that can be scrutinised. I don't think they have much to offer, but they don't need much to take office." What I find more surprising is that SKS used the 28 billion figure just this week in an interview. At least the others in his team saw fit to not mention the figure even when repeatedly asked. The effect on the GE will be minimal, if anything but maybe they will learn that now is the time to put your policies forward and they need to be able to withstand scrutiny | |||
"So other than dropping the 28bn figure, we are none the wiser. And since the 28bn was never broken down into its component spending, we don’t know the impact. Labour fumbling the grenade I fear this will be a regular occurrence once in power. They have been allowed to get away with boastful claims with no substance, but as that clock is ticking down to the GE they are finding out they need to start to provide some detail that can be scrutinised. I don't think they have much to offer, but they don't need much to take office. What I find more surprising is that SKS used the 28 billion figure just this week in an interview. At least the others in his team saw fit to not mention the figure even when repeatedly asked. The effect on the GE will be minimal, if anything but maybe they will learn that now is the time to put your policies forward and they need to be able to withstand scrutiny" | |||
| |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. " Presumably it's to attract the 'climate science isn't real' types. But I doubt it will work. | |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. " The other day they were saying the home insulation plan was still to go ahead but apparently there is disagreement on how much that will cost already. | |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. The other day they were saying the home insulation plan was still to go ahead but apparently there is disagreement on how much that will cost already. " Like the tories not a clue on what things cost or should cost. Starmer and Reeves have run only their expenses accounts, not these enormous budgets, totally above their ability Why have labour not got Dr Miatta Fahnbulleh as shadow chancellor. | |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. The other day they were saying the home insulation plan was still to go ahead but apparently there is disagreement on how much that will cost already. Like the tories not a clue on what things cost or should cost. Starmer and Reeves have run only their expenses accounts, not these enormous budgets, totally above their ability Why have labour not got Dr Miatta Fahnbulleh as shadow chancellor. " I heard somewhere that Reeves thought that people’s average weekly shopping bill had gone up £100 under this government. She either has a very large shopping bill or hasn’t got a clue. | |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. The other day they were saying the home insulation plan was still to go ahead but apparently there is disagreement on how much that will cost already. Like the tories not a clue on what things cost or should cost. Starmer and Reeves have run only their expenses accounts, not these enormous budgets, totally above their ability Why have labour not got Dr Miatta Fahnbulleh as shadow chancellor. I heard somewhere that Reeves thought that people’s average weekly shopping bill had gone up £100 under this government. She either has a very large shopping bill or hasn’t got a clue." It has gone up consider though, right? Or do you deny that as well? | |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. The other day they were saying the home insulation plan was still to go ahead but apparently there is disagreement on how much that will cost already. Like the tories not a clue on what things cost or should cost. Starmer and Reeves have run only their expenses accounts, not these enormous budgets, totally above their ability Why have labour not got Dr Miatta Fahnbulleh as shadow chancellor. I heard somewhere that Reeves thought that people’s average weekly shopping bill had gone up £100 under this government. She either has a very large shopping bill or hasn’t got a clue. It has gone up consider though, right? Or do you deny that as well? " Am I denying that it has gone up £100? Yes I think so. Do you think it has? | |||
"Now he is saying £15bn a year No experience of business, handling or budgeting large sums of money Arbitrarily halves it. No explanation of what parts of the expenditure will be cut or deffered. Straw man. The other day they were saying the home insulation plan was still to go ahead but apparently there is disagreement on how much that will cost already. Like the tories not a clue on what things cost or should cost. Starmer and Reeves have run only their expenses accounts, not these enormous budgets, totally above their ability Why have labour not got Dr Miatta Fahnbulleh as shadow chancellor. " Welcome to our future leaders, much the same as our current leaders. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"We all know what is coming, "HO dear they have left no money, im afraid there will be hard choices to make" just history repeating itself over again just a different author. I wonder if Starmmer lost his seat what would happen, wes streeting is on the verge of losing his, I read." There's no way Starmer can lose his seat. I mean, it's possible but highly unlikely. | |||
"Miliband saying that Labour’s climate plan is “world leading”. Whenever a British politician uses the words “world leading” it’s a dead cert that it’s the biggest pile of dog poo known to man." Philip Hammond was the most honest about climate change “The UK cannot afford the one trillion pound cost of climate change” | |||
