News0 min ago
The Start Of The End For Rediculous Green Polieis?
8 Answers
I have always felt it daft that we have to make ourselves noncompetitive with countries like China and India and then import the goods they can make cheaper because of nonsense green policies and tax.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While China has been a big user of coal during its rapid expansion, it is now replacing much of that energy generation with renewable energy. They are far outpacing us in the uptake of solar and wind. China produces more green energy than any other country. India are not that far behind them, and we are way behind. Which is why pollution in London is now worse than China.
http://
Obviously people with money can go and live in the countryside, and the rest, mainly the poor, immigrants and elderly are easily replacable, so there is no point in having green policies to keep the air clean and the people healthy.
http://
Obviously people with money can go and live in the countryside, and the rest, mainly the poor, immigrants and elderly are easily replacable, so there is no point in having green policies to keep the air clean and the people healthy.
"China produces more green energy than any other country. India are not that far behind them,..."
Scarcely surprising given their size to ours.
One of the reasons pollution has increased in big cities (especially London) is the ridiculous fashion for burning wood in fancy domestic burners. Wood is far more polluting than coal in many respects.
Until recently China was opening a new coal-fired power station every week. Any small savings in emissions the UK made (normally only by virtue of ridiculously high subsidies paid by consumers for inefficient means of energy production) were offset many fold by the increasing emissions from China and India. The entire energy strategy of the UK is in chaos because of the ridiculous adherence to a dogma that will see no appreciable decrease in overall emissions.
As I type, the UK’s production of electricity from coal is at or near capacity providing 20% of demand, likewise nuclear (16%), gas is working at about 90% of its installed capacity providing 44% of demand, wind weighs in at 10% (it can provide no more than around 14%). The most ridiculous energy source of all is the quaintly –named “biomass” (aka wood pellets processed from trees felled in Canada). At the absolute best this source of energy produces 50% more emissions per KwH than coal, and at worst about four times as much. This is before the cost (in emissions) of processing and transport (which is considerable) is taken into account. This provides about 5% of demand currently but is set to increase.
There is no proper strategy to replace the capacity lost by the closure of perfectly serviceable coal-fired power stations in the coming few years except to hope that the wind blows a bit harder at the right times and in the right places. Successive governments have presided over this abrogation of responsibility to provide the country’s energy security mainly because they have been enthralled by the “green” lobby.
Scarcely surprising given their size to ours.
One of the reasons pollution has increased in big cities (especially London) is the ridiculous fashion for burning wood in fancy domestic burners. Wood is far more polluting than coal in many respects.
Until recently China was opening a new coal-fired power station every week. Any small savings in emissions the UK made (normally only by virtue of ridiculously high subsidies paid by consumers for inefficient means of energy production) were offset many fold by the increasing emissions from China and India. The entire energy strategy of the UK is in chaos because of the ridiculous adherence to a dogma that will see no appreciable decrease in overall emissions.
As I type, the UK’s production of electricity from coal is at or near capacity providing 20% of demand, likewise nuclear (16%), gas is working at about 90% of its installed capacity providing 44% of demand, wind weighs in at 10% (it can provide no more than around 14%). The most ridiculous energy source of all is the quaintly –named “biomass” (aka wood pellets processed from trees felled in Canada). At the absolute best this source of energy produces 50% more emissions per KwH than coal, and at worst about four times as much. This is before the cost (in emissions) of processing and transport (which is considerable) is taken into account. This provides about 5% of demand currently but is set to increase.
There is no proper strategy to replace the capacity lost by the closure of perfectly serviceable coal-fired power stations in the coming few years except to hope that the wind blows a bit harder at the right times and in the right places. Successive governments have presided over this abrogation of responsibility to provide the country’s energy security mainly because they have been enthralled by the “green” lobby.
New Judge we have finally realised that we need Nuclear power and have signed up a contract with France and China to build the next generation of Nuclear stations. As I have said on her several times the UK was the world leader in Nuclear power but now we do not even have a training program for Nuclear engineering, so have to rely on China and France. The UK totally abandoned all Nuclear power programs in the 1970s due to the highly successful 'Nuclear Power No Thanks' campaine. This campaign pushed the incorrect idea that Nuclear power stations were a way to produce Nuclear bombs by stealth. It in turn was born of the CND protests of the 1960/70s
We have no one to blame but ourselves for the current power shortfall.
You can view the current status of the National Grid here
http://
It shows the current useage and the % being produced by each form of generation.
We have no one to blame but ourselves for the current power shortfall.
You can view the current status of the National Grid here
http://
It shows the current useage and the % being produced by each form of generation.
Yes that's where i got the figures I quoted, Eddie.
I quite agree. Successive governments have rolled over in the face of opposition from a few zealots who would see us all living in caves in the dark. The abandonment of our nuclear ambitions was one manifestation of this lunacy and the current crave for "renewables" (some of which are not worthy of the name) is another.
I quite agree. Successive governments have rolled over in the face of opposition from a few zealots who would see us all living in caves in the dark. The abandonment of our nuclear ambitions was one manifestation of this lunacy and the current crave for "renewables" (some of which are not worthy of the name) is another.
One of the last things Obama did, was to block construction of a disputed segment through the Standing Rock Sioux Native American Indian reservation.
For Trump to resurrect this part of the pipeline is sheer folly. He professes to be a man of the people, and yet that doesn't seem to extend to the original inhabitants of America.
The Standing Rock Sioux Native American Indian reservation was set up by Washington, but the treaty has been repeatedly broken by Washington.
No wonder the Native Americans are up in arms.
For Trump to resurrect this part of the pipeline is sheer folly. He professes to be a man of the people, and yet that doesn't seem to extend to the original inhabitants of America.
The Standing Rock Sioux Native American Indian reservation was set up by Washington, but the treaty has been repeatedly broken by Washington.
No wonder the Native Americans are up in arms.
Why should anybody mind about a pipeline extending across what is essentially uninhabited scrub and desert? The area you mention is around 3,500 sq miles (for comparison, about seven times the size of the Brecon Beacons NP) and has around 8,000 inhabitants. So, a little under half a square mile (320 acres) each. And there is no room to accommodate a pipeline? Or does the land have some "spiritual" connection which means it cannot be defiled?
As I understand it, the main objections are on environmental grounds and are based on the premise that "pipelines can break". Quite true. So really we're back to the Green lobby. Because something has the potential to cause damage we don't use it just in case. These protests are, in fact, little to do with native Americans. If you read this:
https:/
You will find on page one, paragraph one, line one,this:
"No part of the pipeline will be installed on the Standing Rock reservation." (accompanied by a map).
"Environmentalists" need to understand that the world needs to shift stuff about (unless, that is, we all live in caves in the cold and dark).
As I understand it, the main objections are on environmental grounds and are based on the premise that "pipelines can break". Quite true. So really we're back to the Green lobby. Because something has the potential to cause damage we don't use it just in case. These protests are, in fact, little to do with native Americans. If you read this:
https:/
You will find on page one, paragraph one, line one,this:
"No part of the pipeline will be installed on the Standing Rock reservation." (accompanied by a map).
"Environmentalists" need to understand that the world needs to shift stuff about (unless, that is, we all live in caves in the cold and dark).
1 to 8 of 8
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.