blandy Posted April 6, 2022 Author Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2022 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 6, 2022 Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2022 The gloves really are off with dishy Rishi now Absolutely no surprise that this news comes on the same day the New NI rate is introduced Hit him hard and hit him low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted April 6, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted April 6, 2022 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2022 Share Posted April 6, 2022 35 minutes ago, blandy said: Yeah but Labour would have given free broadband so that’s worse. Look it up, it’s all there for you to see, I’m not going to show you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 6, 2022 Share Posted April 6, 2022 1 hour ago, blandy said: Don’t bother asking him about it as he doesn’t know. Why would he? None of his business. Leave him out of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 Quote Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production... ... Key points of the new energy strategy Nuclear - The government plans to reduce the UK's reliance on oil and gas by building as many as eight new nuclear reactors, including two at Sizewell in Suffolk. A new body will oversee the delivery of the new plants. Wind - The government aims to reform planning laws to speed up approvals for new offshore wind farms. For onshore wind farms it wants to develop partnerships with "supportive communities" who want to host turbines in exchange for guaranteed cheaper energy bills. Hydrogen - Targets for hydrogen production are being doubled to help provide cleaner energy for industry as well as for power, transport and potentially heating. Solar - The government will consider reforming rules for installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings to help increase the current solar capacity by up to five times by 2035. Oil and gas - A new licensing round for North Sea projects is being launched in the summer on the basis that producing gas in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than doing so abroad. Heat pumps - There will be a £30m "heat pump investment accelerator competition" to make British heat pumps which reduce demand for gas. BBC They've missed the tide again. Golly. 30 million for heat pump research. Billions stuffed into their chums' offshore pockets for dicky goods and failed services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 7, 2022 Author Moderator Share Posted April 7, 2022 Ideologically wrong and incompetent. Same old same old. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 Why insulate when you can just get people to pay more and more for gigantic 20 year construction programmes. It’s pathetic and the people that vote for them are pathetic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 Remember when the tories changed the law on inshore wind farms so they couldn’t be built. Yet now they say they’d love inshore wind farms, but the problem is the law makes them difficult to build. If one person objects to wind farm it cannot be built. If a whole community and a planning department and the local council object to a waste incinerator in the middle of a residential area, they can be over ruled by a Westminster Minister. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post choffer Posted April 7, 2022 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2022 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 Their views on onshore windfarms are just bizarre, it's like they're still having the debates of 20 years ago. Back then, lots of people used to complain about windfarms 'spoiling the view' and it was a big deal in rural communities (IIRC there was a big fight about this on Anglesey for instance). Now though, nobody gives a shit about what they look like, not because of Ukraine or climate change or energy security, people have just got used to what they look like. The one advantage of the Conservative party's absurd dislike of onshore wind is that they semi-accidentally birthed a world-leading offshore wind industry as a consequence, so I guess it's not all terrible, but they should get over it now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Their views on onshore windfarms are just bizarre, it's like they're still having the debates of 20 years ago. Back then, lots of people used to complain about windfarms 'spoiling the view' and it was a big deal in rural communities (IIRC there was a big fight about this on Anglesey for instance). Now though, nobody gives a shit about what they look like, not because of Ukraine or climate change or energy security, people have just got used to what they look like. The one advantage of the Conservative party's absurd dislike of onshore wind is that they semi-accidentally birthed a world-leading offshore wind industry as a consequence, so I guess it's not all terrible, but they should get over it now. There are existing sites with dormant planning approvals for wind farms. If we wanted to, we could start construction on Monday. A nuclear power station will take 20 years, and in years 5, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 the news will break that its a bit more expensive than we thought it was going to be when we last reported. When it’s built in 20 years time, it will have a lifespan of about 25 years. A useable life span that is. It’ll be toxic for thousands of years. It’s an insane thing to do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 (edited) I see Pickles is still as big a piece of shit as he ever was. Edited April 7, 2022 by markavfc40 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 96? He's mixed it up with Hillsborough hasn't he. And is even out of date on that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 7, 2022 Moderator Share Posted April 7, 2022 11 minutes ago, Davkaus said: 96? He's mixed it up with Hillsborough hasn't he. And is even out of date on that. More likely to have said 57 in error I'd have thought 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: There are existing sites with dormant planning approvals for wind farms. If we wanted to, we could start construction on Monday. A nuclear power station will take 20 years, and in years 5, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 the news will break that its a bit more expensive than we thought it was going to be when we last reported. When it’s built in 20 years time, it will have a lifespan of about 25 years. A useable life span that is. It’ll be toxic for thousands of years. It’s an insane thing to do. I'm reluctantly coming round to the opposite conclusion to you on nuclear I think. I don't want to conclude this, but it seems that we either have to have natural gas or nuclear for baseload, in a world in which we need to produce an awful lot more electricity than we do today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I'm reluctantly coming round to the opposite conclusion to you on nuclear I think. I don't want to conclude this, but it seems that we either have to have natural gas or nuclear for baseload, in a world in which we need to produce an awful lot more electricity than we do today. We can have far more facilities such as Dinorwig (Electric Mountain). We can invest in batteries instead of nuclear. Then there’s my usual drum to bang, tidal. There is never ever a day when the tide doesn’t roll in. There’s a thousand square kilometres of roof all ready and waiting for PV. Then of course there is ground source heat pumps, deep wells. Then, it would be interesting to see the impact of spending £25 Billion on insulation and efficiency, rather than Hinckley C. Then, if someone can explain the long term plan to make the nuclear poison legacy a bit less ‘forever’ whilst also explaining how we improve our security by having a nuclear facility outside every town, then I’m all ears. Welfare power station was supposed to last 60 years, it lasted 44 before it became too economically unviable to operate safely. Closed in 2015, it’ll be the year 2100 before they can move in to decommission the reactor. Chernobyl was in 1986. It was 2012 before the full ban was lifted on growing food for sale in some parts of Wales. Now I know we’re told that sort of accident couldn’t happen again. Like Long Island couldn’t. Like Fukushima couldn’t. Yeah, sure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 31 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: We can have far more facilities such as Dinorwig (Electric Mountain). We can invest in batteries instead of nuclear. Then there’s my usual drum to bang, tidal. There is never ever a day when the tide doesn’t roll in. There’s a thousand square kilometres of roof all ready and waiting for PV. Then of course there is ground source heat pumps, deep wells. Then, it would be interesting to see the impact of spending £25 Billion on insulation and efficiency, rather than Hinckley C. Then, if someone can explain the long term plan to make the nuclear poison legacy a bit less ‘forever’ whilst also explaining how we improve our security by having a nuclear facility outside every town, then I’m all ears. Welfare power station was supposed to last 60 years, it lasted 44 before it became too economically unviable to operate safely. Closed in 2015, it’ll be the year 2100 before they can move in to decommission the reactor. Chernobyl was in 1986. It was 2012 before the full ban was lifted on growing food for sale in some parts of Wales. Now I know we’re told that sort of accident couldn’t happen again. Like Long Island couldn’t. Like Fukushima couldn’t. Yeah, sure. Tidal power (like all options) is expensive, supply may not match demand and can’t be installed everywhere. A lot of people don’t want PV cells on their roofs, then there’s also the supply / demand issues. In this country we use most energy on the shortest, darkest days. I can see why nuclear is a strong candidate for consistent, “clean” (in terms of greenhouse gases), almost too cheap to meter energy in a world that is using more and more electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: We can have far more facilities such as Dinorwig (Electric Mountain). Good video if someone has no idea what this place is. Blew my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 3 minutes ago, Genie said: Tidal power (like all options) is expensive, supply may not match demand and can’t be installed everywhere. A lot of people don’t want PV cells on their roofs, then there’s also the supply / demand issues. In this country we use most energy on the shortest, darkest days. I can see why nuclear is a strong candidate for consistent, “clean” (in terms of greenhouse gases), almost too cheap to meter energy in a world that is using more and more electricity. Apologies, but I think this is pulling my leg? I’m well tired so you might not be? But I’m taking tidal power not being suitable around an island, and nuclear being too cheap to meter as my clues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts