FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Cost of climate policies
Cost of climate policies
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK" ‘Some years ago’ ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK" Are you a Luddite ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK Are you a Luddite ? " Do you know what the costs are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK Are you a Luddite ? Do you know what the costs are?" Can you be more specific, ‘some years ago’ is vague | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK Are you a Luddite ? Do you know what the costs are? Can you be more specific, ‘some years ago’ is vague " It was 2009 but the ILO and OECD reports were in the last 2 years. That's why I'm asking for current figures for the UK. What figures do you have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK Are you a Luddite ? Do you know what the costs are? Can you be more specific, ‘some years ago’ is vague It was 2009 but the ILO and OECD reports were in the last 2 years. That's why I'm asking for current figures for the UK. What figures do you have?" I see, Jackal has explained this to you? New technology has high initial costs, do you wear mass produced clothes, use a mass produced phone, drive a mass produced car? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK Are you a Luddite ? Do you know what the costs are? Can you be more specific, ‘some years ago’ is vague It was 2009 but the ILO and OECD reports were in the last 2 years. That's why I'm asking for current figures for the UK. What figures do you have? I see, Jackal has explained this to you? New technology has high initial costs, do you wear mass produced clothes, use a mass produced phone, drive a mass produced car? " Costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK Are you a Luddite ? Do you know what the costs are? Can you be more specific, ‘some years ago’ is vague It was 2009 but the ILO and OECD reports were in the last 2 years. That's why I'm asking for current figures for the UK. What figures do you have? I see, Jackal has explained this to you? New technology has high initial costs, do you wear mass produced clothes, use a mass produced phone, drive a mass produced car? Costs?" What? That makes no sense, anyway , when you bought your car it was mass produced on a production line, the initial cost for to set this up would have been very high, and the technology will have improved over the years making the production set up cheaper and more efficient. And guess what? These production lines will have got rid of thousands of jobs. Do you drive a mass produced car? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. " Your obviously a Luddite, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. Your obviously a Luddite, " Have you got any figures or just abuse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. Your obviously a Luddite, Have you got any figures or just abuse?" "Luddite: a person opposed to new technology or ways of working." You're a person, and you're opposed to new technology and ways of working. So it doesn't appear to be an insult, but more of a description. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. Your obviously a Luddite, Have you got any figures or just abuse?" It’s 2021 not 1971, you need to move on, unless you drive a hand made car, wear hand made clothes and use a hand made phone you are being a hypocrite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. Your obviously a Luddite, Have you got any figures or just abuse? "Luddite: a person opposed to new technology or ways of working." You're a person, and you're opposed to new technology and ways of working. So it doesn't appear to be an insult, but more of a description." Exactly, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. " I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. Your obviously a Luddite, Have you got any figures or just abuse? It’s 2021 not 1971, you need to move on, unless you drive a hand made car, wear hand made clothes and use a hand made phone you are being a hypocrite. " Maybe he has an empty can of beans with string attached? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs?" Initial costs are high, this has been explained, do you drive a mass produced car? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the other costs? Britain has lost all/nearly all its steel and aluminium industries due to artificially increased energy costs. Does anyone know the real cost of so-called 'green' policies? Back in 2009 it was estimated that 'green' policies had cost 110,500 jobs in Spain. That will very likely have accelerated since and Britain is on a similar trajectory. Your obviously a Luddite, Have you got any figures or just abuse? It’s 2021 not 1971, you need to move on, unless you drive a hand made car, wear hand made clothes and use a hand made phone you are being a hypocrite. Maybe he has an empty can of beans with string attached?" Possibly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs?" You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? Initial costs are high, this has been explained, do you drive a mass produced car? " As well as the cost of constructing windfarms etc there is the cost of destruction of ther industries such as steel, coal, aluminium...all to no gain because production is simply transferred from the west to the east. Have you got any figures that may shed some light on the real costs? I presume you don't...but, it would be interesting if you did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. " Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As well as the cost of constructing windfarms etc there is the cost of destruction of ther industries such as steel, coal, aluminium...all to no gain because production is simply transferred from the west to the east. "  
This is some of your best work.
Lol
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that" Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? Initial costs are high, this has been explained, do you drive a mass produced car? As well as the cost of constructing windfarms etc there is the cost of destruction of ther industries such as steel, coal, aluminium...all to no gain because production is simply transferred from the west to the east. Have you got any figures that may shed some light on the real costs? I presume you don't...but, it would be interesting if you did" Are wind farms made out of plastic and wood? Steel will still be needed, your talking nonsense . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. " Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? Initial costs are high, this has been explained, do you drive a mass produced car? As well as the cost of constructing windfarms etc there is the cost of destruction of ther industries such as steel, coal, aluminium...all to no gain because production is simply transferred from the west to the east. Have you got any figures that may shed some light on the real costs? I presume you don't...but, it would be interesting if you did Are wind farms made out of plastic and wood? Steel will still be needed, your talking nonsense . " Steel is almost all made abroad and it's 'carbon emissions' are made abroad. We suffer the job losses and the costs. Any info on costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies?" I thought you had the figures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies?" No, it's there. And no, you're the one outraged by "green policies", why do you want me to give you the figures? Maybe you need to do some research (not on infowars), before getting outraged. Might help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies? I thought you had the figures? " I've given you the figures of high costs etc which you think are funny. So can you tell me what you think the figures should be? I've asked you about 20 times now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? Initial costs are high, this has been explained, do you drive a mass produced car? As well as the cost of constructing windfarms etc there is the cost of destruction of ther industries such as steel, coal, aluminium...all to no gain because production is simply transferred from the west to the east. Have you got any figures that may shed some light on the real costs? I presume you don't...but, it would be interesting if you did Are wind farms made out of plastic and wood? Steel will still be needed, your talking nonsense . Steel is almost all made abroad and it's 'carbon emissions' are made abroad. We suffer the job losses and the costs. Any info on costs?" So you don't even know what you're outraged about. Amazing, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies? No, it's there. And no, you're the one outraged by "green policies", why do you want me to give you the figures? Maybe you need to do some research (not on infowars), before getting outraged. Might help." Ha ha. You don't have figures, do you?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies? No, it's there. And no, you're the one outraged by "green policies", why do you want me to give you the figures? Maybe you need to do some research (not on infowars), before getting outraged. Might help. Ha ha. You don't have figures, do you? "What figures are you looking for? Why are you outraged if you don't know what the figures are? I think you've confused yourself, then become angry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fairly clear that the 2 guys above feel uncomfortable in talking about the costs of 'green' policies. Does anyone else have any solid info?" This is your thread, you're the one who is angry about "green policies" before you even know the costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK" Cost of not doing this; The planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very easy to write off people who think that science isn't real. But a lot of time, effort and money (from the fossil fuels industry) is pumped into climate change denial. It's big business. The fossil fuel multinationals do not want to lose the $423 billion in subsidies they receive every year. It's not as simple as the OP proposed in the last thread that only left wing people are scientifically literate. I didn't say that, did I? You're a big supporter of 'green' policies... have you got any figures for costs? You did say that. Which green policies do I support? Thus far I haven't commented on any green policies. Here's a figure, governments worldwide hand the fossil fuels industry $423 billion every year. If you're angry about a few quid going to a wind farm, you should be absolutely bezerker at that figure. Can you find where I said that 'only left wing people are scientifically literate'? You have a habit of plucking things out of thin air. Again, show me where I said that Towards the end of the last climate change thread. Go and look if you can't remember. Sure it's fine if it was a mistake. You can take this opportunity to clarify your point of view if you wish. Hmm. You're reduced to making things up. Should I just presume you have no figures on the cost of these 'green' policies? I thought you had the figures? I've given you the figures of high costs etc which you think are funny. So can you tell me what you think the figures should be? I've asked you about 20 times now!" Ok, let’s use your figures from 2009, it’s £500,000 for every ‘green’ job created , correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. " I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. " you mean like in Teesside | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. you mean like in Teesside " According to our Spanish friend each of these jobs will cost £500,000 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. you mean like in Teesside " Actually no. Bigger and better and real | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. you mean like in Teesside According to our Spanish friend each of these jobs will cost £500,000 "Did we ever get any specifics on what these costs are made up of, who is paying the costs, and what these jobs actually are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. you mean like in Teesside According to our Spanish friend each of these jobs will cost £500,000 "That’s fucked my costings then.. Damn this labour shortage is starting to bite!, £240 an hour for production staff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we don't have any green policy's in this country, a few promises for the future but talk is cheap. I’m a regular slater of this government but in their defence on this there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on green projects. It is big numbers too. you mean like in Teesside According to our Spanish friend each of these jobs will cost £500,000
Did we ever get any specifics on what these costs are made up of, who is paying the costs, and what these jobs actually are?"No, I am afraid not, he will probably return and repeat himself again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The electricity for steel producers isn’t artificially high in the U.K. it’s just not subsidised as much in the Uk as it is in Germany and France. So if you want cheaper electricity ( the U.K. gas is much cheaper as a bit of a balance btw ) then you will need to ask the government for more SUBSIDIES for steel producers. An increasing worry for U.K. steel factories is that we are no longer in the ETS system which encouraged clean energy and was working towards a more level playing field. Our lack of coal was a big advantage . In addition the German and French government have both heavily invested ( SUBSIDIES ? ) in their electricity generation infrastructure. France nuclear, Germany EFWs. The U.K. has not and as an industry insider stated being a further step away from the European capacity will only add costs to U.K. steel production. We have so far almost replaced coal but not created greater capacity due to lack of funding. We also do not benefit from the combined electric hot water and heating systems common on the continent which add increased revenue to power stations. You have to invest both privately and publicly if you wish to develop and compete. New technology needs less jobs. Soon your taxi won’t have a driver. Will you be fighting to bring them back too? Progress is a bastard for some but a bounty for others. It won’t stop for you no matter how long you hold your breath and stamp your feet! You want subsidies and tax breaks for producers banning ? Those subsidies are working to help the steel industry you are shouting about. " Err...the cost of energy in this country IS artificially inflated. OFGEM reported that 'green' taxes already add 25% to electricity bills They didn't include the carbon charges that are stirred in at the generation stage Bills will, in the years to come, be increased further by the green nonsense. It's chasing jobs away...to countries with lower energy taxes. Thus the amount of energy used is the same...but we don't have jobs. The economics of the mad house | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The electricity for steel producers isn’t artificially high in the U.K. it’s just not subsidised as much in the Uk as it is in Germany and France. So if you want cheaper electricity ( the U.K. gas is much cheaper as a bit of a balance btw ) then you will need to ask the government for more SUBSIDIES for steel producers. An increasing worry for U.K. steel factories is that we are no longer in the ETS system which encouraged clean energy and was working towards a more level playing field. Our lack of coal was a big advantage . In addition the German and French government have both heavily invested ( SUBSIDIES ? ) in their electricity generation infrastructure. France nuclear, Germany EFWs. The U.K. has not and as an industry insider stated being a further step away from the European capacity will only add costs to U.K. steel production. We have so far almost replaced coal but not created greater capacity due to lack of funding. We also do not benefit from the combined electric hot water and heating systems common on the continent which add increased revenue to power stations. You have to invest both privately and publicly if you wish to develop and compete. New technology needs less jobs. Soon your taxi won’t have a driver. Will you be fighting to bring them back too? Progress is a bastard for some but a bounty for others. It won’t stop for you no matter how long you hold your breath and stamp your feet! You want subsidies and tax breaks for producers banning ? Those subsidies are working to help the steel industry you are shouting about. Err...the cost of energy in this country IS artificially inflated. OFGEM reported that 'green' taxes already add 25% to electricity bills They didn't include the carbon charges that are stirred in at the generation stage Bills will, in the years to come, be increased further by the green nonsense. It's chasing jobs away...to countries with lower energy taxes. Thus the amount of energy used is the same...but we don't have jobs. The economics of the mad house" I don’t see how you can call it green nonsense because we have to go green somehow because the alternative is to keep on using fossil fuels and that’s got to stop. If we need to pay more and have less holidays then that’s how it is, I would love to see flying made the dearer option every time
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings?" So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth. "No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense. Can you do so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?"Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first? At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk. "I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that. Can you defend this nonsense? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?"You're right, your posts are nonsense. How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
"You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are? You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong. So what do you think the true costs are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings?" Oil rigs cost over £200 million to build, they provide 200 jobs each, do the maths | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?"Can you provide me some examples of a ‘green job’ as I think your very confused | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
"King Juan Carlos knows the score | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?"Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about? Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
King Juan Carlos knows the score "Lol Is he on fab? King Juan.... Care to shed some light on this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?"Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense. The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs. You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
King Juan Carlos knows the score
Lol
Is he on fab?
King Juan.... Care to shed some light on this? "He has a university, £500,000, green jobs, etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?"It costs £1 million to create oil rig jobs, can you give me an example of these mythical ‘green jobs’ ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
King Juan Carlos knows the score
Lol
Is he on fab?
King Juan.... Care to shed some light on this?
He has a university, £500,000, green jobs, etc etc "So you also are unable to defend the ridiculous cost of 'green' jobs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?"I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on. You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site. Do you have any context at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
" You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing"You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support. I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies"."He is on the wind up again,  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK" https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/climate-change-faqs/how-will-acting-on-climate-change-affect-the-economy/ Enjoy your reading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies"." You're a master of deflection! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK" What is the cost of not doing anything about climate change? Is it free? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 Enjoy your reading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies".
He is on the wind up again, "Do you have accurate figures then! Thought not. You're like a typical Remainer who didn't know what he voted for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK What is the cost of not doing anything about climate change? Is it free? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 Enjoy your reading." Adrian wants us to keep using coal, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies".
He is on the wind up again,
Do you have accurate figures then! Thought not.
You're like a typical Remainer who didn't know what he voted for"I am using the figures you quoted, £500,000 per job, I want you to clarify what is a green job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies".
You're a master of deflection! "What am I deflecting? So to summarise. A. You're angry about green subsidies B. You don't know what they are. C. You don't have any information at all. D. You have decided that a few of us support this subsidy, even though you haven't told us what it is. E. You're demanding answers to an undefined question. Got it. All up to date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies".
He is on the wind up again,
Do you have accurate figures then! Thought not.
You're like a typical Remainer who didn't know what he voted for"Why are you suggesting that only remainers are interested in the full story, context and actually information? Bit rude to people who voted leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK What is the cost of not doing anything about climate change? Is it free? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 Enjoy your reading." Can you tell me where in that study it says what the cost is of each 'green' job; how many, if any, Jobs in the wider economy are lost due to capital misallication, and how long 'green' jobs last for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK" This vague assertion using incredibly old data doesn't seem very credible does it? https://newrepublic.com/article/69906/breaking-down-spains-green-jobs-spending Have you been unable to find any other information to corroborate your statements? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies".
He is on the wind up again,
Do you have accurate figures then! Thought not.
You're like a typical Remainer who didn't know what he voted for
Why are you suggesting that only remainers are interested in the full story, context and actually information?
Bit rude to people who voted leave. "There you go again! I'm saying that Remainer extremists don't understand the positions they support. Big sloganeers though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK What is the cost of not doing anything about climate change? Is it free? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 Enjoy your reading. Can you tell me where in that study it says what the cost is of each 'green' job; how many, if any, Jobs in the wider economy are lost due to capital misallication, and how long 'green' jobs last for?" Oh, bless you. You missed the link to the Imperial College site that will answer all of your questions on this matter, but you will have to read and understand it. Sorry 
This post, as stated gives you some context to balance the cost of "green jobs" against the cost of "not green jobs".
You're welcome  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings? So in summary. A. You're angry about green subsidies. B. You don't know what the subsidies are. C. You don't know how much they are for. D. You're demanding answers from randomers on a swinging forum for how much some unspecified subsidies are worth.
No, I'm challenging people who support this nonsense ...you for one .. to justify this nonsense.
Can you do so?
Can you specify which subsidies you would like me to justify first?
At the moment, you haven't given us anything to go on. Hit me with something concrete and we can talk.
I have said the cost if green jobs is too high. I have provided 2 figures which show that.
Can you defend this nonsense?
You're right, your posts are nonsense.
How do you expect anyone to comment on a bunch of random numbers with no context, no information on what these subsidies are, whose paying them, what the jobs are, where this is happening, how many jobs are costing this much.
You say you think the costs are rubbish. What do you think the costs are?
You seem to be avoiding having to defend green nonsense by saying the figures I've provided are wrong.
So what do you think the true costs are?
Costs for what? What on earth are you talking about?
Is there a specific government subsidy that's upsetting you?
Hmm. It's quite clear you can't defend the green nonsense.
The cost I refer to, and we have discussed for hours, is the cost of creating 'green' jobs.
You think my figures are nonsense. What do you think the true cost is?
I have no clue if your figures are nonsense or not. You haven't told is what they're for, what these jobs are, where they are, whose paying for them. There's literally nothing to go on.
You're asking people to defend some random number you've chucked onto a forum on a swingers site.
Do you have any context at all?
You have no idea why you support the policies you support.
Very revealing
You haven't told me what policies you imagine I support.
I wish you would reveal some information about these "policies".
He is on the wind up again,
Do you have accurate figures then! Thought not.
You're like a typical Remainer who didn't know what he voted for
Why are you suggesting that only remainers are interested in the full story, context and actually information?
Bit rude to people who voted leave.
There you go again! I'm saying that Remainer extremists don't understand the positions they support. Big sloganeers though"But you haven't told us what positions you think we support. I keep asking you which policies or subsidies you're imagining we support. But you don't have an answer. What's a "remainer extremist"? Someone who extremely didn't want the country ruined through brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very weak to avoid the question by pretending you don't understand it. I hope you're a bit sharper on the uptake in other areas of your life" Okay. Try asking the question again. Clearly, with specifics, context and information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK What is the cost of not doing anything about climate change? Is it free? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 Enjoy your reading. Can you tell me where in that study it says what the cost is of each 'green' job; how many, if any, Jobs in the wider economy are lost due to capital misallication, and how long 'green' jobs last for? Oh, bless you. You missed the link to the Imperial College site that will answer all of your questions on this matter, but you will have to read and understand it. Sorry
This post, as stated gives you some context to balance the cost of "green jobs" against the cost of "not green jobs".
You're welcome "Bless you...I followed your link but .. nothing. If I missed something, please explain it here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very weak to avoid the question by pretending you don't understand it. I hope you're a bit sharper on the uptake in other areas of your life Okay. Try asking the question again. Clearly, with specifics, context and information. " I've asked it 30 times perfectly clearly but your only defence is to pretend not to understand. Still, it's better than pretending to laugh at job losses as you did further up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very weak to avoid the question by pretending you don't understand it. I hope you're a bit sharper on the uptake in other areas of your life Okay. Try asking the question again. Clearly, with specifics, context and information. I've asked it 30 times perfectly clearly but your only defence is to pretend not to understand. Still, it's better than pretending to laugh at job losses as you did further up" I have to admire your persistence. However, no one is going to defend a bunch of random numbers you post up. Do you have any information at all about this subsidy that's making you angry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner " Care to defend green policies? Try to do it without personal abuse which is a sign of poor intellect. I think I'll be waiting a long time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner " He's unable to defend the $423 billion in annual subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives each year. As per the recent UN report. Instead is choosing to be angry at a €500,000 figure with absolutely no context. For 500k you could create 846,000 "green" jobs per year. Every year. For the amount the fossil fuels industry receive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know the cost of creating 'green' jobs? Some years ago, Spain's University of Rey Juan Carlos estimated that the cost of creating a new 'green' job was 571,138 euros (approx £500,000). The cost rose to 1m euros per wind energy job. For each megawatt of 'green energy' installed, the university calculated that 5.2 jobs were lost in the wider economy. The ILO and OECD have also warned of losses. Given the COP26 obsessions, does anyone have figures for the UK What is the cost of not doing anything about climate change? Is it free? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 Enjoy your reading. Can you tell me where in that study it says what the cost is of each 'green' job; how many, if any, Jobs in the wider economy are lost due to capital misallication, and how long 'green' jobs last for? Oh, bless you. You missed the link to the Imperial College site that will answer all of your questions on this matter, but you will have to read and understand it. Sorry
This post, as stated gives you some context to balance the cost of "green jobs" against the cost of "not green jobs".
You're welcome
Bless you...I followed your link but .. nothing.
If I missed something, please explain it here"By "nothing" do you mean that you do not understand the writing or that there is too much information? Are you saying that Imperial College and the LSE do not exist? Can you not use this link? https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/climate-change-faqs/how-will-acting-on-climate-change-affect-the-economy/ There really is a lot of information and it is significantly more up to date than the discredited information which you seem to be using that is specific to Spain from over a decade ago that referred to information from two decades ago. Give it a go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner He's unable to defend the $423 billion in annual subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives each year. As per the recent UN report. Instead is choosing to be angry at a €500,000 figure with absolutely no context. For 500k you could create 846,000 "green" jobs per year. Every year. For the amount the fossil fuels industry receive. " I've asked you to explain that alleged subsidy but you were unable to. Try again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very weak to avoid the question by pretending you don't understand it. I hope you're a bit sharper on the uptake in other areas of your life Okay. Try asking the question again. Clearly, with specifics, context and information. I've asked it 30 times perfectly clearly but your only defence is to pretend not to understand. Still, it's better than pretending to laugh at job losses as you did further up I have to admire your persistence. However, no one is going to defend a bunch of random numbers you post up. Do you have any information at all about this subsidy that's making you angry? " I don't think he knows where they come from. They are less than credible though: https://newrepublic.com/article/69906/breaking-down-spains-green-jobs-spending | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner Care to defend green policies? Try to do it without personal abuse which is a sign of poor intellect. I think I'll be waiting a long time "I don’t need to, they are happening, they are necessary and there is nothing you can do to stop them, you need to move with the times . Moaning, crying and whining won’t alter anything, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner He's unable to defend the $423 billion in annual subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives each year. As per the recent UN report. Instead is choosing to be angry at a €500,000 figure with absolutely no context. For 500k you could create 846,000 "green" jobs per year. Every year. For the amount the fossil fuels industry receive. " Oil rig jobs cost £1 million each | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner He's unable to defend the $423 billion in annual subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives each year. As per the recent UN report. Instead is choosing to be angry at a €500,000 figure with absolutely no context. For 500k you could create 846,000 "green" jobs per year. Every year. For the amount the fossil fuels industry receive. I've asked you to explain that alleged subsidy but you were unable to. Try again?" Is the internet not working for you? https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/november-2021/undp-more-spent-fossil-fuel-subsidies-fighting-poverty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner Care to defend green policies? Try to do it without personal abuse which is a sign of poor intellect. I think I'll be waiting a long time
I don’t need to, they are happening, they are necessary and there is nothing you can do to stop them, you need to move with the times . Moaning, crying and whining won’t alter anything, "So you support these ideas but don't know why? How much inequality, fuel poverty and unemployment would he needed before you would start asking questions? Again, try to answer without abuse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner He's unable to defend the $423 billion in annual subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives each year. As per the recent UN report. Instead is choosing to be angry at a €500,000 figure with absolutely no context. For 500k you could create 846,000 "green" jobs per year. Every year. For the amount the fossil fuels industry receive. I've asked you to explain that alleged subsidy but you were unable to. Try again?" Read the UN report. It's freely available to anyone. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/november-2021/undp-more-spent-fossil-fuel-subsidies-fighting-poverty Or are you suggesting that you prefer to argue a point without being armed with having any information? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s is obvious that Adrian is a confused angry Luddite coal miner Care to defend green policies? Try to do it without personal abuse which is a sign of poor intellect. I think I'll be waiting a long time
I don’t need to, they are happening, they are necessary and there is nothing you can do to stop them, you need to move with the times . Moaning, crying and whining won’t alter anything,
So you support these ideas but don't know why?
How much inequality, fuel poverty and unemployment would he needed before you would start asking questions?
Again, try to answer without abuse"Your living in the 1970s, fossil fuels are running out, don’t be scared, embrace the future not the past . Listen to Boris, the Queen, the adorable Greta, they know the score, don’t be scared | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nissan spent £700m building Sunderland it original employed 22 people but I’ll give it full strength ratio of 1300 people employed. That cost is £538,461 per person. PUS RUNNING COSTS. You are telling me the people of Sunderland are stupid to have gone along with such ridiculous investment in jobs? The many more thousands of construction jobs and associated trades disappeared quickly after construction hence your headline number of jobs disappearing. They always do. In reality they move on to their next project. Oil companies throw billions into exploration and start ups but as soon as the oil starts pumping that knife is out cutting costs and jobs for efficiency. Green projects are no different. They are greener though.
"They are greener, and they recieving a fraction of the subsidiaries that the fossil fuels industry do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's perfectly clear the greens haven't got a clue about what they support" Why do you support the huge subsidiaries that fossil fuel companies get? Why? Why do you support oil rig jobs that cost £1 million each? Why | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's perfectly clear the greens haven't got a clue about what they support" It's perfectly clear that you haven't got a clue what you are accusing people of not having a clue about. Although, it's been highly entertaining. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's perfectly clear the greens haven't got a clue about what they support It's perfectly clear that you haven't got a clue what you are accusing people of not having a clue about. Although, it's been highly entertaining. "But the 'fossil fuel subsidies' are dwarfed by subsidies to 'renewables'. So your claim that renewable energy looks better when subsidies are stripped out is nonsense. The facts: Fossil fuels get 4.6b dollars in subsidies. Fossil fuels account for 78% of all energy we use. That compares with 11.6b dollars subsidy for 'renewable energy' which accounts for 12.8% of the energy used. This 'renewable' energy gets hugely disproportionate taxpayer support. Strip that away and the extent of the 'reneeable' rip-off of householders and taxpayers is very apparent. It should end and energy be reduced in cost | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's perfectly clear the greens haven't got a clue about what they support It's perfectly clear that you haven't got a clue what you are accusing people of not having a clue about. Although, it's been highly entertaining.
But the 'fossil fuel subsidies' are dwarfed by subsidies to 'renewables'.
So your claim that renewable energy looks better when subsidies are stripped out is nonsense.
The facts:
Fossil fuels get 4.6b dollars in subsidies. Fossil fuels account for 78% of all energy we use.
That compares with 11.6b dollars subsidy for 'renewable energy' which accounts for 12.8% of the energy used.
This 'renewable' energy gets hugely disproportionate taxpayer support.
Strip that away and the extent of the 'reneeable' rip-off of householders and taxpayers is very apparent.
It should end and energy be reduced in cost"You're off with your fossil fuels subsidies figure by a factor of a hundred. See above for links to the UN report detailing this. Can you direct us to this 11.6 billion figure for renewable subsidies? Even if it's true, it's about 1/38th what the fossil fuels industry gets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Have you managed to Google anything about your claims? Or are you still angry and confused about a few quid going to the renewables sector while $423,000,000,000 goes to the fossil fuel industry every year. " He has left in shame, he won’t be back  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Have you managed to Google anything about your claims? Or are you still angry and confused about a few quid going to the renewables sector while $423,000,000,000 goes to the fossil fuel industry every year. He has left in shame, he won’t be back "His thread was a catastrophic failure to provide any information or any credible argument. I would probably also not come back if it had have been me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Have you managed to Google anything about your claims? Or are you still angry and confused about a few quid going to the renewables sector while $423,000,000,000 goes to the fossil fuel industry every year. He has left in shame, he won’t be back
His thread was a catastrophic failure to provide any information or any credible argument. I would probably also not come back if it had have been me. "I think the fake Jean Monnet quote on another thread was the final straw, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, the job losses in the Spanish paper seem to be based on looking at the stock capital per worker of private companies. No idea if that's the right comparison. Doesn't strike me as quote like for like. But take it as red that it's a good number That number is 260k. A later post says 195k is the cost in a 2020 study. So green is now better than the private sector. And the costs per worker has halved. In ten years. Sounds like a good investment "So there is actually zero government subsidies here! Total 'mare for the OP's already wishy washy point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, we already have costings from Spain's University of King Juan Carlos showing each 'green' job created costs £500,000. There is a 2020 paper from the University of Pais Vasco claiming that each 'green' job created costs £195,000. The picture is clear: these jobs are far too expensive. You would get far more bang per buck dropping the green nonsense and reallocating the capital elsewhere. Nine out of 10 green jobs vanish very quickly: they are created in one-off construction projects. Some people here thing the job losses caused by this nonsense are laughable. I ask for the umpteenth time: does anyone have other costings?" As commented on multiple times by others, you're repeating the same argument. You're also ignoring the fact that we have global heating which is set for cataclysmic results. Business as usual should largely not be an option. Based on your plans, what temperature increases will result? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet." The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked." This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct " Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked." Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed." Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive." Cockroaches maybe, but everyone else no matter what bloody political party they support is fucked. I don't think when the sea level rises its going to check which political party you voted for before it washes you away. Mother nature don't give a fuck about political bias or do you really believe the statement you made? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive. Cockroaches maybe, but everyone else no matter what bloody political party they support is fucked. I don't think when the sea level rises its going to check which political party you voted for before it washes you away. Mother nature don't give a fuck about political bias or do you really believe the statement you made?" Tories, especially this bunch, have a desire to make money and proliferate in any situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive. Cockroaches maybe, but everyone else no matter what bloody political party they support is fucked. I don't think when the sea level rises its going to check which political party you voted for before it washes you away. Mother nature don't give a fuck about political bias or do you really believe the statement you made? Tories, especially this bunch, have a desire to make money and proliferate in any situation." Yes they do, an so do many others horde wealth but all that money ain't going to help in the end, you continue your rant against tory voters if you want even though it will achieve fuck all, climate change is more serious to me than all that crap, i dont want my grandson to have to suffer more than he already will through our reckless actions as a species, I hate to think of all the lives that will be lost if we don't do something. To me a life is a life and politics doesn't come into it, its that simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive. Cockroaches maybe, but everyone else no matter what bloody political party they support is fucked. I don't think when the sea level rises its going to check which political party you voted for before it washes you away. Mother nature don't give a fuck about political bias or do you really believe the statement you made? Tories, especially this bunch, have a desire to make money and proliferate in any situation. Yes they do, an so do many others horde wealth but all that money ain't going to help in the end, you continue your rant against tory voters if you want even though it will achieve fuck all, climate change is more serious to me than all that crap, i dont want my grandson to have to suffer more than he already will through our reckless actions as a species, I hate to think of all the lives that will be lost if we don't do something. To me a life is a life and politics doesn't come into it, its that simple." While I largely agree. There are political parties we can vote for that will do more to abate climate change than the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?" They will be the first to go, just like covid deniers , evolution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive. Cockroaches maybe, but everyone else no matter what bloody political party they support is fucked. I don't think when the sea level rises its going to check which political party you voted for before it washes you away. Mother nature don't give a fuck about political bias or do you really believe the statement you made? Tories, especially this bunch, have a desire to make money and proliferate in any situation. Yes they do, an so do many others horde wealth but all that money ain't going to help in the end, you continue your rant against tory voters if you want even though it will achieve fuck all, climate change is more serious to me than all that crap, i dont want my grandson to have to suffer more than he already will through our reckless actions as a species, I hate to think of all the lives that will be lost if we don't do something. To me a life is a life and politics doesn't come into it, its that simple. While I largely agree. There are political parties we can vote for that will do more to abate climate change than the Tories." Without a doubt there is, which is one of the reasons why i dont vote for them, but on the same hand I have no wish to see millions of people dead just because they vote a different way to me either. I thought this thread was about the climate and the associated costs of reaching the goals we need to to survive as species not which political party you support though, because all that does is detract from the real issue that we all face. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?" like every other extinction those that adapt the quickest will survive those that dont will vanish that goes for every species | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?like every other extinction those that adapt the quickest will survive those that dont will vanish that goes for every species" Hopefully those at the top decide we need to adapt then eh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. Yep every single one of us no matter what your colour or creed. Sure that both cockroaches and Tories will survive. Cockroaches maybe, but everyone else no matter what bloody political party they support is fucked. I don't think when the sea level rises its going to check which political party you voted for before it washes you away. Mother nature don't give a fuck about political bias or do you really believe the statement you made? Tories, especially this bunch, have a desire to make money and proliferate in any situation. Yes they do, an so do many others horde wealth but all that money ain't going to help in the end, you continue your rant against tory voters if you want even though it will achieve fuck all, climate change is more serious to me than all that crap, i dont want my grandson to have to suffer more than he already will through our reckless actions as a species, I hate to think of all the lives that will be lost if we don't do something. To me a life is a life and politics doesn't come into it, its that simple. While I largely agree. There are political parties we can vote for that will do more to abate climate change than the Tories. Without a doubt there is, which is one of the reasons why i dont vote for them, but on the same hand I have no wish to see millions of people dead just because they vote a different way to me either. I thought this thread was about the climate and the associated costs of reaching the goals we need to to survive as species not which political party you support though, because all that does is detract from the real issue that we all face." The OP is a climate changer denier. He started the thread to attempt to demonstrate that it's all a wind up for someone to make money. The thread has utterly failed from that perspective. But yes. We need to work together to get through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?like every other extinction those that adapt the quickest will survive those that dont will vanish that goes for every species Hopefully those at the top decide we need to adapt then eh!" hahaha they will be ok,the rest of us will just have to adapt or die,if those at the top were taking it seriously all the things they have been talking about doing would meen something as it is its all just promises nothing else and lets be honest what goverment anywhere sticks to there promises | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?like every other extinction those that adapt the quickest will survive those that dont will vanish that goes for every species Hopefully those at the top decide we need to adapt then eh!hahaha they will be ok,the rest of us will just have to adapt or die,if those at the top were taking it seriously all the things they have been talking about doing would meen something as it is its all just promises nothing else and lets be honest what goverment anywhere sticks to there promises" 100% We've known about climate change since the 80s. They've done fuck all about it. Depends how bad it gets. Unless we can adapt to aquatic life, we could all be gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?like every other extinction those that adapt the quickest will survive those that dont will vanish that goes for every species Hopefully those at the top decide we need to adapt then eh!hahaha they will be ok,the rest of us will just have to adapt or die,if those at the top were taking it seriously all the things they have been talking about doing would meen something as it is its all just promises nothing else and lets be honest what goverment anywhere sticks to there promises 100% We've known about climate change since the 80s. They've done fuck all about it. Depends how bad it gets. Unless we can adapt to aquatic life, we could all be gone. " as sure as night follows day the human race will dissapear one day,its the life of this planet every so often it hits reset and has a mass cull,and has a bit of time to its self for a couple of hundred thousand years,why we think we are something special and it wont happen to us aswell is beyond me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cost of not doing this; The planet. The planet will be fine, it's humans that are fucked. This is true, if we don’t respect the planet it will make humans extinct Even right wing climate change deniers, or will they make it through?like every other extinction those that adapt the quickest will survive those that dont will vanish that goes for every species Hopefully those at the top decide we need to adapt then eh!hahaha they will be ok,the rest of us will just have to adapt or die,if those at the top were taking it seriously all the things they have been talking about doing would meen something as it is its all just promises nothing else and lets be honest what goverment anywhere sticks to there promises 100% We've known about climate change since the 80s. They've done fuck all about it. Depends how bad it gets. Unless we can adapt to aquatic life, we could all be gone. as sure as night follows day the human race will dissapear one day,its the life of this planet every so often it hits reset and has a mass cull,and has a bit of time to its self for a couple of hundred thousand years,why we think we are something special and it wont happen to us aswell is beyond me" Sure, but there is no reason to accelerate our demise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? " Yes, Google keeps coming up with the figure of 571,138 euros per 'green' job created. Do you think that expenditure is worthwhile? Although I seem to recall you pretended not to understand the question before...I suspected that was a device to avoid answering! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? " I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold "Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills? Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat? Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear? Very revealing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
"1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?"1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune, "I note that you can't defend it. Point proved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved "It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden "Laughable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable"You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it? "Just...wow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
"What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant "And that the cost of subsidies to 'green' jobs destroyed 5.2 jobs in the wider economy. Is that funny too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My solar panels cost £4k.. 4 years ago. My next green job (self employed) will cost £3K for the training and certification to install renewables, so sounds like a load of complete bollox to me." That is very reasonable, according to Ade they should be at least 500,000 euros | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant
And that the cost of subsidies to 'green' jobs destroyed 5.2 jobs in the wider economy.
Is that funny too?"I suppose I could get a massive drilling rig and try and strike oil? Would that be cheaper than solar panels and a windmill ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant
And that the cost of subsidies to 'green' jobs destroyed 5.2 jobs in the wider economy.
Is that funny too?
I suppose I could get a massive drilling rig and try and strike oil? Would that be cheaper than solar panels and a windmill ? "You're disputing the costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant
And that the cost of subsidies to 'green' jobs destroyed 5.2 jobs in the wider economy.
Is that funny too?
I suppose I could get a massive drilling rig and try and strike oil? Would that be cheaper than solar panels and a windmill ?
You're disputing the costs?"I am asking? Are you against people making their own energy? I fancy harnessing the sun and wind to power my house, unless you know off a cheaper coal or oil alternative? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant
And that the cost of subsidies to 'green' jobs destroyed 5.2 jobs in the wider economy.
Is that funny too?
I suppose I could get a massive drilling rig and try and strike oil? Would that be cheaper than solar panels and a windmill ?
You're disputing the costs?
I am asking? Are you against people making their own energy? I fancy harnessing the sun and wind to power my house, unless you know off a cheaper coal or oil alternative? "Deflecting! Are you challenging the costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any update on this OP? Did you manage to Google anything better yet? I forgot about this thread, it is comedy gold
Why do you think it's funny to 'create' green jobs at a cost of 571,000 euros and unaffordable energy bills?
Do you think it is funny ...in your middle-class world ..to think of poor people unable to afford heat?
Or for steelworkers jobs to disappear?
Very revealing
1m euros per wind-energy job. No wonder you pretend to laugh...but you can't defend it, can you?
1m euros? That’s cheap, those big windmills cost a fortune,
I note that you can't defend it. Point proved
It’s difficult to defend or support something that is make believe. I do like those big windmills though, how much do they cost? Might get one for the garden
Laughable
You must know how much the big ones cost? I only want one to power my house, do you think I will have to pay someone to operate it?
Just...wow
What about solar panels for my roof, Do they cost millions as well? It’s either that or get myself a coal burning power plant
And that the cost of subsidies to 'green' jobs destroyed 5.2 jobs in the wider economy.
Is that funny too?
I suppose I could get a massive drilling rig and try and strike oil? Would that be cheaper than solar panels and a windmill ?
You're disputing the costs?
I am asking? Are you against people making their own energy? I fancy harnessing the sun and wind to power my house, unless you know off a cheaper coal or oil alternative?
Deflecting!
Are you challenging the costs?"The good thing about the wind and sunshine is that it is everywhere, unlike coal and oil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, but they were once that expensive.. back in 1957 when USA invented them for Space probes. Think they came down a bit since. The guy I bought them off is still selling them on fleabay. He is working in Green but never got trained!! 3.2kw £2500 2.5kw £800 Inverter upgrade £200 If this is reference to Coal, Oil, Gas and other fossil fuel jobs then Good Riddance is all I can say. Their day is over. Although I wholly disagree with the way Thatcher shut down our coal mines in the 80s, looking back, it did nail the end of coal generation and acid rain. Some people must still think we should have kept water wheels and steam engines. I once went out to the wind turbines off the coast of Rhyl on a jetski, and it's only when you get that close you realise how awesome and massive they really are. Once invested and installed, renewables just keep on giving, apart from a little maintenance.. all that free, clean energy.. "Very true, I think Adrian is a Luddite , bless him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, but they were once that expensive.. back in 1957 when USA invented them for Space probes. Think they came down a bit since. The guy I bought them off is still selling them on fleabay. He is working in Green but never got trained!! 3.2kw £2500 2.5kw £800 Inverter upgrade £200 If this is reference to Coal, Oil, Gas and other fossil fuel jobs then Good Riddance is all I can say. Their day is over. Although I wholly disagree with the way Thatcher shut down our coal mines in the 80s, looking back, it did nail the end of coal generation and acid rain. Some people must still think we should have kept water wheels and steam engines. I once went out to the wind turbines off the coast of Rhyl on a jetski, and it's only when you get that close you realise how awesome and massive they really are. Once invested and installed, renewables just keep on giving, apart from a little maintenance.. all that free, clean energy..
Very true, I think Adrian is a Luddite , bless him "Ofgem has said that 'green' taxes are now adding 25% to household energy bills. And that's only on the retail side. Other 'carbon charges' are baked into the generation side. Do you challenge these figures? Because your pretend laughing is hollow if you don't do so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, but they were once that expensive.. back in 1957 when USA invented them for Space probes. Think they came down a bit since. The guy I bought them off is still selling them on fleabay. He is working in Green but never got trained!! 3.2kw £2500 2.5kw £800 Inverter upgrade £200 If this is reference to Coal, Oil, Gas and other fossil fuel jobs then Good Riddance is all I can say. Their day is over. Although I wholly disagree with the way Thatcher shut down our coal mines in the 80s, looking back, it did nail the end of coal generation and acid rain. Some people must still think we should have kept water wheels and steam engines. I once went out to the wind turbines off the coast of Rhyl on a jetski, and it's only when you get that close you realise how awesome and massive they really are. Once invested and installed, renewables just keep on giving, apart from a little maintenance.. all that free, clean energy..
Very true, I think Adrian is a Luddite , bless him
Ofgem has said that 'green' taxes are now adding 25% to household energy bills. And that's only on the retail side. Other 'carbon charges' are baked into the generation side.
Do you challenge these figures? Because your pretend laughing is hollow if you don't do so"Tbh, I am now taking my advice from a fellow forumite who is in the green industry and knows what he is talking about, sorry Adrian, but your just not credible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you are serious about getting panels, go for it. Best investment I've ever made and only advice I can offer, is buy the biggest system you can afford and accommodate.. you'll need it for EV charging and heat pumps. Add 30kw of batteries and on days like the last 2 weeks where only 1 to 2kw has been produced, I can buy in overnight at car charging rates of 5p/kw for excess wind/nuclear generated Grid energy and use it the day after and avoid 20p/kw day rate. Now that's the future!!" Sounds good, I need to do some research , but it’s definitely the way forward | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, but they were once that expensive.. back in 1957 when USA invented them for Space probes. Think they came down a bit since. The guy I bought them off is still selling them on fleabay. He is working in Green but never got trained!! 3.2kw £2500 2.5kw £800 Inverter upgrade £200 If this is reference to Coal, Oil, Gas and other fossil fuel jobs then Good Riddance is all I can say. Their day is over. Although I wholly disagree with the way Thatcher shut down our coal mines in the 80s, looking back, it did nail the end of coal generation and acid rain. Some people must still think we should have kept water wheels and steam engines. I once went out to the wind turbines off the coast of Rhyl on a jetski, and it's only when you get that close you realise how awesome and massive they really are. Once invested and installed, renewables just keep on giving, apart from a little maintenance.. all that free, clean energy..
Very true, I think Adrian is a Luddite , bless him
Ofgem has said that 'green' taxes are now adding 25% to household energy bills. And that's only on the retail side. Other 'carbon charges' are baked into the generation side.
Do you challenge these figures? Because your pretend laughing is hollow if you don't do so
Tbh, I am now taking my advice from a fellow forumite who is in the green industry and knows what he is talking about, sorry Adrian, but your just not credible "British Steel says that 'green levies' and the cost of carbon credits have pushed their costs way above those of their foreign competitors. Do you think job losses should be the subject of your laughter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Happy to share lessons learnt and give advice.. Solar is excellent during summer, not so in Winter but I've reduced Grid import by 80% annually and use Air Conditioners in summer and same to heat in Winter. Using surplus for hot water has reduced 50% off gas annually but that will change next year with heat pump and immersion heaters. Large battery is the secret, store plenty in Summer for free when you're not home and reverse duty in Winter to charge with overnight cheap rate to use the following day supplemented by the better Solar days in Winter. £6-12 per month Summer £30 per month for 3 months Winter If you qualify for Green Homes Grant, a £5k system will cost you £1500.." How much do heat pumps cost? And how do houses have to be changed to install them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends what kind of heat pump.. Air to Air is much more efficient as heating than water. I have 3x at £350-£450 each, self installed off eBay. One is 18,000 BTU and big enough to heat all upstairs rooms. Dual purpose, cooling and dehumidification in summer, heating in Winter. Putting in a supplimential hot water heat pump next year for £1500 to use excess Solar more effectively. To expect a Heat Pump to replace a boiler for the coldest nights of winter is fantasy. So, keeping the boiler but aim to use heat pumps for heat and hot water except for 15 to 20 days of winter where gas will be used. It's not Net Zero but will cut my emissions by 85%-95% annually. I don't agree with government wanting to rip out boilers as some days it is too cold for heat pump efficiency." You've got heat pumps for less than £1,000? The Energy Savings Trust says they cost £10k each to buy and install. Furthermore, according to the Energy Savings Trust, they require extra insulation (even second-skin walls) costing an average of £10k per household. These won't be 'extras'...gas boilers will be phased out by 2033. That's only the tip of the iceberg of this 'green' rip off... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The EST said Solar PV I got for £4000 should have been £18,000. Search eBay for 12,000 and 18,000 BTU Air Conditioner- A split unit with heating AND cooling is a "Heat Pump". As for £10k, complete rubbish as this will include the new radiators and pipework that you keep hearing about to run Air to Water systems, hence Air to Air as no need to rip out Central Heating system. Apart from paying over the odds for branded units, Air to Water systems are the same and will either have a Samsung, Toshiba or Panasonic compressor built in. Same job, quarter the price from an unbranded unit. Anything with the government attached is overpriced and under specification as people are profiteering from it. " Huge amount of profiteering. I don't doubt your figures but they are far lower than most people would pay because you can do stuff yourself...if I read you correctly? But how are you doing air to air? Where are your ducts if not under the floor...necessitating underfloor pipes or even a raised floor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wall unit in two rooms of the house, heat pumps are on wall outside. 3rd unit is in the shed I use for working in as an office. Duct systems are available but easier to install individual units. Samsung in the 'shed' was £385 delivered from Italy, same unit in the UK is £1250. To save on cost, buy the units yourself and just pay for installation. As for Air to Water, they are simple plumbing and £1500 for a 6kw equivalent." Good info, thanks. But you're a handyman/craftsman and most people wouldn't be able to do the work themselves. Would air ducts be suitable for England's small terraced houses? I think not. My own air-source pump is fine...but I built my own large-ish house and it was simple to put underfloor pipes in. It would be outrageously expensive to retrofit...and most people would have to do that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
