This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Given the moratorium on fracking has just been rejected. How do the people in England/wales/ NI approach energy problems/solutions and how would the Scots { since this is to be a devolved issue}. What would you vote?
Post edited at 09:46
In reply to MargieB:
If energy and sustainability are your priority, you need to look at parties that propose the mass culling of the human race. I'm only aware of one party with this as a goal, but fortunately they disbanded around 1945, although there are still little pockets of the nutters around.
If you are just concerned about whether somoeone will try fracking under your lawn, then go with the Greens
If energy and sustainability are your priority, you need to look at parties that propose the mass culling of the human race. I'm only aware of one party with this as a goal, but fortunately they disbanded around 1945, although there are still little pockets of the nutters around.
If you are just concerned about whether somoeone will try fracking under your lawn, then go with the Greens
6
1
In reply to MargieB:
I'd vote for a party that proposed funding about 12GW of fission capacity as a short term priority and spending 2% of GDP on nuclear fusion R&D as an ongoing project. We spend that much on a military.
I'd vote for a party that proposed funding about 12GW of fission capacity as a short term priority and spending 2% of GDP on nuclear fusion R&D as an ongoing project. We spend that much on a military.
Post edited at 10:52
10
In reply to wintertree:
Yep,
We need short term fission, assuming that fusion will actually work in the mid-term, otherwise we need fission long term.
We need people in power who actually understand science and engineering.
Yep,
We need short term fission, assuming that fusion will actually work in the mid-term, otherwise we need fission long term.
We need people in power who actually understand science and engineering.
12
In reply to Jimbo C:
Margaret Thatcher had a Chemistry degree............
>
> We need people in power who actually understand science and engineering.
Margaret Thatcher had a Chemistry degree............
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
She realised that we couldn't keep taking coal out of the ground forever
She realised that we couldn't keep taking coal out of the ground forever
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
So why have France and Bulgaria and New York State banned fracking?
> If energy and sustainability are your priority, you need to look at parties that propose the mass culling of the human race. I'm only aware of one party with this as a goal, but fortunately they disbanded around 1945, although there are still little pockets of the nutters around.
> If you are just concerned about whether somoeone will try fracking under your lawn, then go with the Greens
So why have France and Bulgaria and New York State banned fracking?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
What do you mean?
Is it that you don't think that the Greens have a broad enough range of policies, or that you think the concerns about fracking are misplaced?
> If energy and sustainability are your priority, you need to look at parties that propose the mass culling of the human race. I'm only aware of one party with this as a goal, but fortunately they disbanded around 1945, although there are still little pockets of the nutters around.
> If you are just concerned about whether somoeone will try fracking under your lawn, then go with the Greens
What do you mean?
Is it that you don't think that the Greens have a broad enough range of policies, or that you think the concerns about fracking are misplaced?
Post edited at 15:35
1
In reply to MargieB: because it's a popular move and the price of oil and gas isn't high enough to make it popular. There is lots of shale oil and gas developed elsewhere in the US, so being a nimby is not financially prohibitive.
It is all well and good to research fusion, and that should be done, but the reality with current technology is that it's not working. If it is indeed the energy of tomorrow, and tomorrow doesn't come, we need an alternative. A diversity of sources and more energy efficient buildings please
It is all well and good to research fusion, and that should be done, but the reality with current technology is that it's not working. If it is indeed the energy of tomorrow, and tomorrow doesn't come, we need an alternative. A diversity of sources and more energy efficient buildings please
In reply to MargieB:
Interesting to see people's energy policies.
But
Is there is no party you would vote for on this issue? would there be any party-approximation to your views on energy ? Which part of the UK are you from?- just to add interest to this thread.
Interesting to see people's energy policies.
But
Is there is no party you would vote for on this issue? would there be any party-approximation to your views on energy ? Which part of the UK are you from?- just to add interest to this thread.
Post edited at 15:37
In reply to MargieB:
Vote green.
Unless you're in a close Tory seat, in which case vote tactically against them.
Unless they're close to UKIP, in which case vote green.
Vote green.
Unless you're in a close Tory seat, in which case vote tactically against them.
Unless they're close to UKIP, in which case vote green.
2
In reply to MargieB:
To clarify.
A bigger green vote will make whoever's in power think more about sustainable energy. For the Tories 'more' will still be terrible so vote to keep them out.
To clarify.
A bigger green vote will make whoever's in power think more about sustainable energy. For the Tories 'more' will still be terrible so vote to keep them out.
1
In reply to MargieB:
Vote green. There's not sufficient distinction between the policies of the rest, particularly in areas important to the vital move away from current unsustainable ways of living.
I can see this thread developing into an acrimonious debate around pros/ cons of nuclear fission and fusion v renewables. It's a debate at the heart of green philosophy. But for me, fracking needs to be avoided, and so does nuclear. the long-lived waste and security issues involved are not an acceptable legacy for future generations. Lots of investment in tidal energy, please!
I'm in Scotland, FWIW.
Vote green. There's not sufficient distinction between the policies of the rest, particularly in areas important to the vital move away from current unsustainable ways of living.
I can see this thread developing into an acrimonious debate around pros/ cons of nuclear fission and fusion v renewables. It's a debate at the heart of green philosophy. But for me, fracking needs to be avoided, and so does nuclear. the long-lived waste and security issues involved are not an acceptable legacy for future generations. Lots of investment in tidal energy, please!
I'm in Scotland, FWIW.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
No idea. but banning fracking doesn't solve the problem (demand)
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> So why have France and Bulgaria and New York State banned fracking?
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> So why have France and Bulgaria and New York State banned fracking?
No idea. but banning fracking doesn't solve the problem (demand)
In reply to wbo:
I generally agree, but...
I don't want diversity, I want robustness and security of supply. The two are not the same, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I generally agree, but...
> A diversity of sources
I don't want diversity, I want robustness and security of supply. The two are not the same, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
1
In reply to wintertree:
The greens are committed to no nuclear. It's this kind of unworkable policy that limits them, they become nothing more than a lobbying party.
Nuclear is expensive, but dealing with nuclear waste creates jobs, fossil fuel waste just pollutes the atmosphere.
The greens are committed to no nuclear. It's this kind of unworkable policy that limits them, they become nothing more than a lobbying party.
Nuclear is expensive, but dealing with nuclear waste creates jobs, fossil fuel waste just pollutes the atmosphere.
2
In reply to MargieB:
Energy is an issue that really needs cross-party support as the plant and infrastructure lasts multiple parliamentary terms. We have that to some extent, with the Climate Change Act gaining almost unanimous support, and it is this that will drive reductions in CO2. Unfortunately we seem to be starting to fail to stay on trajectory for that target and CO2 emissions are not synonymous with sustainability which is a much more complex issue.
It also shouldn't be a debate between one technology or another - we will need all available forms of low carbon technology faster than is likely to be achieved. I would need a lot of convincing that we could hit carbon targets without nuclear and I think the waste and security issues are manageable. I also think there won't be a magic bullet such as fussion, or at least holding out for one would be unwise. Maybe it will work but large-scale deployment is 15 years off at best and we need to start moving now.
I shouldn't be a devolved issue. The bigger the system you have to play with the more flexibility you have so GB should always operate as a single system and more interconnection with Ireland and the continent would again increase options and flexibility. By all means there can be local solutions and a lot of 'horses for courses' situations but the whole system needs to be designed carefully at a GB or UK level.
Finally, we need a dose of realism. A secure, low-carbon system will not come cheap - just look at the strike prices being agreed for renewables and nuclear, all around £100/MWh which is about double current wholesale prices. Greater efficiency and demand reduction/management will help control prices. But any politician telling you he can deliver low-carbon cheaper than now is either deluded or lying.
What would I want? I'd push the one technology that seems to have little support - CCS. It will (and does) work but we need to know if it can be scaled up and at what cost. Also, demand reduction is a win/win so please push that. More broadly, we need to build stuff. The electricity system is old (generation and grid). We can't keep protesting and banning everything otherwise the lights really will go out (and there's no reason they should). But we need to remember that security of supply is probably the most important aspect because if the lights do go out you can be sure that all your carbon or environmental targets will go out the window.
Which party - Not UKIP or Greens, I wish Labour but Ed's price freeze makes me nervous. Cons on their own are slipping away from what I'd like so maybe LibDems? Sorry for the ramble.
Energy is an issue that really needs cross-party support as the plant and infrastructure lasts multiple parliamentary terms. We have that to some extent, with the Climate Change Act gaining almost unanimous support, and it is this that will drive reductions in CO2. Unfortunately we seem to be starting to fail to stay on trajectory for that target and CO2 emissions are not synonymous with sustainability which is a much more complex issue.
It also shouldn't be a debate between one technology or another - we will need all available forms of low carbon technology faster than is likely to be achieved. I would need a lot of convincing that we could hit carbon targets without nuclear and I think the waste and security issues are manageable. I also think there won't be a magic bullet such as fussion, or at least holding out for one would be unwise. Maybe it will work but large-scale deployment is 15 years off at best and we need to start moving now.
I shouldn't be a devolved issue. The bigger the system you have to play with the more flexibility you have so GB should always operate as a single system and more interconnection with Ireland and the continent would again increase options and flexibility. By all means there can be local solutions and a lot of 'horses for courses' situations but the whole system needs to be designed carefully at a GB or UK level.
Finally, we need a dose of realism. A secure, low-carbon system will not come cheap - just look at the strike prices being agreed for renewables and nuclear, all around £100/MWh which is about double current wholesale prices. Greater efficiency and demand reduction/management will help control prices. But any politician telling you he can deliver low-carbon cheaper than now is either deluded or lying.
What would I want? I'd push the one technology that seems to have little support - CCS. It will (and does) work but we need to know if it can be scaled up and at what cost. Also, demand reduction is a win/win so please push that. More broadly, we need to build stuff. The electricity system is old (generation and grid). We can't keep protesting and banning everything otherwise the lights really will go out (and there's no reason they should). But we need to remember that security of supply is probably the most important aspect because if the lights do go out you can be sure that all your carbon or environmental targets will go out the window.
Which party - Not UKIP or Greens, I wish Labour but Ed's price freeze makes me nervous. Cons on their own are slipping away from what I'd like so maybe LibDems? Sorry for the ramble.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
That's very true.
I ment to rephrase that actually, it read rather grumpily.
> No idea. but banning fracking doesn't solve the problem (demand)
That's very true.
I ment to rephrase that actually, it read rather grumpily.
In reply to inboard:
Tidal energy is potentially very promising if it can be done in way which does not harm tidal ecosystems. The Severn estuary alone is estimated to be capable of providing 5% of current UK electricity demand.
> Lots of investment in tidal energy, please!
Tidal energy is potentially very promising if it can be done in way which does not harm tidal ecosystems. The Severn estuary alone is estimated to be capable of providing 5% of current UK electricity demand.
In reply to MargieB:
If you want robust and security then fusion is not really so good as it doesn't exist in a usable form. That doesn't mean junking all research, but you can't put all your eggs in one basket either.
If you want an Energy policy it's the Greens as no other party has a policy other than bodge it and hope for the best
If you want robust and security then fusion is not really so good as it doesn't exist in a usable form. That doesn't mean junking all research, but you can't put all your eggs in one basket either.
If you want an Energy policy it's the Greens as no other party has a policy other than bodge it and hope for the best
1
1
In reply to wbo:
I said above that I wouldn't vote Green on energy policy but realised I wasn't sure exactly what their policies were. So I had a quick check of their website and couldn't find much detail about what they'd do.
They seem to have three main policies: demand reduction and efficiency (great, but it's a tough nut to crack and most attempts have fallen short. How will they be different?), more renewables and faster phasing out of fossil fuels (again great, but we have an Act that requires carbon reductions at a rate that is as ambitious as anyone with generous subsidies for renewables. What plans do they have to accelerate this change?) and no nuclear or fracking (fine on fracking but it really is a side issue as far as the UK energy system is concerned and I'd be happy to lose nuclear if they can show me a viable energy system using only renewables).
I said above that I wouldn't vote Green on energy policy but realised I wasn't sure exactly what their policies were. So I had a quick check of their website and couldn't find much detail about what they'd do.
They seem to have three main policies: demand reduction and efficiency (great, but it's a tough nut to crack and most attempts have fallen short. How will they be different?), more renewables and faster phasing out of fossil fuels (again great, but we have an Act that requires carbon reductions at a rate that is as ambitious as anyone with generous subsidies for renewables. What plans do they have to accelerate this change?) and no nuclear or fracking (fine on fracking but it really is a side issue as far as the UK energy system is concerned and I'd be happy to lose nuclear if they can show me a viable energy system using only renewables).
In reply to wintertree:
Agreed.
I saw Prof Cox the other day, saying that the UK spends more on ringtones than what it contributes on fusion funding!!!!
> I'd vote for a party that proposed funding about 12GW of fission capacity as a short term priority and spending 2% of GDP on nuclear fusion R&D as an ongoing project. We spend that much on a military.
Agreed.
I saw Prof Cox the other day, saying that the UK spends more on ringtones than what it contributes on fusion funding!!!!
In reply to wintertree:
I started reading Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock and his conclusion is that we are doomed and Nuclear Fission is the only short term solution to save the earth (Short of Flash Gordon getting involved). I don't think he linked it to Fusion in the long term - he preferred renewables. I didn't finish the book because it was too depressing. I do think the arguments about Fusion are similar to those about early atomic energy experiments and that it could be tamed if we put money into research. 'Splitting the atom' was an experiment in 1908 but became an engineering success in Russia in 1954. I am aware this is not a popular view but I wonder when the Fusion experiments of today might become engineering successes of the future that eventually yield a clean nuclear energy source.
I started reading Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock and his conclusion is that we are doomed and Nuclear Fission is the only short term solution to save the earth (Short of Flash Gordon getting involved). I don't think he linked it to Fusion in the long term - he preferred renewables. I didn't finish the book because it was too depressing. I do think the arguments about Fusion are similar to those about early atomic energy experiments and that it could be tamed if we put money into research. 'Splitting the atom' was an experiment in 1908 but became an engineering success in Russia in 1954. I am aware this is not a popular view but I wonder when the Fusion experiments of today might become engineering successes of the future that eventually yield a clean nuclear energy source.
In reply to MargieB:
The Scottish government have just placed a moratorium on fracking. Incidentally all but three Scottish Labour MP's abstained from a vote to place a moratorium on fracking . Their new leader Jim Mirphy didn't even turn up to vote. Helping to ensure that the motion in Westminster to place a moratorium on fracking was defeated. It will be interesting to see whether the Smith commission proposals follow through and end up in making this a fully devolved matter. So many of the Smith commission proposals seem to be limited by a Westminster veto.
The Scottish government have just placed a moratorium on fracking. Incidentally all but three Scottish Labour MP's abstained from a vote to place a moratorium on fracking . Their new leader Jim Mirphy didn't even turn up to vote. Helping to ensure that the motion in Westminster to place a moratorium on fracking was defeated. It will be interesting to see whether the Smith commission proposals follow through and end up in making this a fully devolved matter. So many of the Smith commission proposals seem to be limited by a Westminster veto.
In reply to alastairmac:
the devolvement of energy policy to scotland would place greater pressure on the english voters as regards energy policy as they will not have the support of the scottish mps anymore . does this concentrate english minds much more now,{ knowing this is coming up} to definie the types of energy/conservation they want ?All forms of energy can be placed on a universal uk grid.
In Scotland we now talk of a Scottish Liberal Democrat Party, A Scottish Green Party, now a Scottish Labour Party and Scottish SNP which gives scope for differing emphasises in policies from Rest ofUK, even within their own parties. I'm still working out the Scottish parties' energy manifestos.But, Are we evolving into English and Welsh versions of Lib, Lab , Green,National ?I feel this will be the result of federalist changes.
It must make this a signifcant General Election all round.
the devolvement of energy policy to scotland would place greater pressure on the english voters as regards energy policy as they will not have the support of the scottish mps anymore . does this concentrate english minds much more now,{ knowing this is coming up} to definie the types of energy/conservation they want ?All forms of energy can be placed on a universal uk grid.
In Scotland we now talk of a Scottish Liberal Democrat Party, A Scottish Green Party, now a Scottish Labour Party and Scottish SNP which gives scope for differing emphasises in policies from Rest ofUK, even within their own parties. I'm still working out the Scottish parties' energy manifestos.But, Are we evolving into English and Welsh versions of Lib, Lab , Green,National ?I feel this will be the result of federalist changes.
It must make this a signifcant General Election all round.
Post edited at 10:58
In reply to MargieB:
I think for the average English and Welsh and Scottish voter etc energy policy is low on the agenda beyond just wanting cheaper energy bills. I don't think the average person on the street gives it much thought and other factors such as the NHS, tax, education etc will rank higher and be more likely to swing a vote to one party or an other.
working in the environmental management sector its surprising how little thought the average member of society gives to energy policy issues other than the headline grabbing pieces I expect few follow the whole debate.
I was involved in carrying out a noise survey for a proposed windfarm (land based) apart from a few people the average person in the town, only a couple of miles down the road couldn't of cared less about the reasons why we needed a greater mix of energy sources. Most people objected due to a loss of view and rural amenity etc.
> does this concentrate english minds much more now,{ knowing this is coming up}
I think for the average English and Welsh and Scottish voter etc energy policy is low on the agenda beyond just wanting cheaper energy bills. I don't think the average person on the street gives it much thought and other factors such as the NHS, tax, education etc will rank higher and be more likely to swing a vote to one party or an other.
working in the environmental management sector its surprising how little thought the average member of society gives to energy policy issues other than the headline grabbing pieces I expect few follow the whole debate.
I was involved in carrying out a noise survey for a proposed windfarm (land based) apart from a few people the average person in the town, only a couple of miles down the road couldn't of cared less about the reasons why we needed a greater mix of energy sources. Most people objected due to a loss of view and rural amenity etc.
In reply to MargieB:
I'm not sure this makes much sense? in what way do Scottish MP's support English voters?
>does this concentrate english minds much more now,{ knowing this is coming up} to definie the types of
>All forms of energy can be placed on a universal uk grid.
If all forms of energy will be on a UK grid, then it does not make much sense to decide these things at a devolved level.
> the devolvement of energy policy to scotland would place greater pressure on the english voters as regards energy policy as they will not have the support of the scottish mps anymore .
I'm not sure this makes much sense? in what way do Scottish MP's support English voters?
>does this concentrate english minds much more now,{ knowing this is coming up} to definie the types of
> energy/conservation they want ?
no>All forms of energy can be placed on a universal uk grid.
If all forms of energy will be on a UK grid, then it does not make much sense to decide these things at a devolved level.
In reply to Alan M:
Unfortunately I think you are completely correct about that. There is so little motivation in the UK for people to use less, or even to consider using less, that the only factor that influences the majority of the population (IMO) is money.
Cheaper fuel prices now are great - surely everyone is happy about that? But all it is doing is making people more able to use more. There is now even less incentive to reduce usage of cars, power, waste etc. Until there is a significant financial incentive to use less, I don't think the majority of the population will open their eyes.
If anyone hasn't seen Chasing Ice yet, grab yourself a copy. It's the only 'thing' I've seen that I believe could make a difference to how people lead their day-to-day life and make a start at using less.
If someone can recommend a party that will provide financial incentives to use less (or another incentive I haven't thought about) then I will vote for them. I haven't a clue how to implement something like that though, least of all mange to get voted in to power in the first place! All I've worked out so far is who I don't want to vote for, and that's surely the wrong way of going about it.
> I think for the average English and Welsh and Scottish voter etc energy policy is low on the agenda beyond just wanting cheaper energy bills. I don't think the average person on the street gives it much thought and other factors such as the NHS, tax, education etc will rank higher and be more likely to swing a vote to one party or an other.
> working in the environmental management sector its surprising how little thought the average member of society gives to energy policy issues other than the headline grabbing pieces I expect few follow the whole debate.
Unfortunately I think you are completely correct about that. There is so little motivation in the UK for people to use less, or even to consider using less, that the only factor that influences the majority of the population (IMO) is money.
Cheaper fuel prices now are great - surely everyone is happy about that? But all it is doing is making people more able to use more. There is now even less incentive to reduce usage of cars, power, waste etc. Until there is a significant financial incentive to use less, I don't think the majority of the population will open their eyes.
If anyone hasn't seen Chasing Ice yet, grab yourself a copy. It's the only 'thing' I've seen that I believe could make a difference to how people lead their day-to-day life and make a start at using less.
If someone can recommend a party that will provide financial incentives to use less (or another incentive I haven't thought about) then I will vote for them. I haven't a clue how to implement something like that though, least of all mange to get voted in to power in the first place! All I've worked out so far is who I don't want to vote for, and that's surely the wrong way of going about it.
1
In reply to NottsRich:
I'm undecided who to vote for though I will be voting based on environmental policy and unfortunately no party meets my personal expectations etc.
I have no idea what's best for the NHS other than being free at the point of use I am at a loss to work out if Conservative policy is actually destroying it (seems to work ok at the moment a family member has just had a 6 week stay in hospital) everything was brilliant etc. I have no idea if the proposed Labour policy will improve it or if the Lib Dem approach is the way forward etc. Same with education I don't follow the debate I have no kids etc, same with taxes etc of course I would like lower taxes overall, though I would pay a little more to fund public services etc.
The only thing I truly follow is environmental issues (its a personal interest and I work in the Environmental Management sector (Pollution Control)). My issue is no party meets my personal expectations for improving the natural and built environment. As examples I am against the Conservatives push for habitat offsetting in respect of development but on the other hand I disagree with the Greens about fracking (Personally and professionally I am for) etc etc etc.
I will have to compromise at some point.
I'm undecided who to vote for though I will be voting based on environmental policy and unfortunately no party meets my personal expectations etc.
I have no idea what's best for the NHS other than being free at the point of use I am at a loss to work out if Conservative policy is actually destroying it (seems to work ok at the moment a family member has just had a 6 week stay in hospital) everything was brilliant etc. I have no idea if the proposed Labour policy will improve it or if the Lib Dem approach is the way forward etc. Same with education I don't follow the debate I have no kids etc, same with taxes etc of course I would like lower taxes overall, though I would pay a little more to fund public services etc.
The only thing I truly follow is environmental issues (its a personal interest and I work in the Environmental Management sector (Pollution Control)). My issue is no party meets my personal expectations for improving the natural and built environment. As examples I am against the Conservatives push for habitat offsetting in respect of development but on the other hand I disagree with the Greens about fracking (Personally and professionally I am for) etc etc etc.
I will have to compromise at some point.
In reply to MargieB:
I already vote every month by getting my electricity through Ecotricity.
I also will be voting Green but more because they are a viable left.
I already vote every month by getting my electricity through Ecotricity.
I also will be voting Green but more because they are a viable left.
In reply to Alan M:
I suspect we have a 15 year shortfall before systems are up and running for renewables/nuclear and we don't want to go cap in hand to Russia to cover our shortfalls. Is that the reason you support fracking, to cover this raging energy gap? or do you believe we will eventually get carbon capture { personally I wouldn't go forward with fracking on a whim and a hope as fragile as that}. Just interested in the subtlety of the problem. What do you think?
and if it is a shortfall, why not austerity in energy conservation of energy as an alternative to fracking?
We do it in economics , we could have better systems of conservation especially in building regulations and commercial buildings etc.
I suspect we have a 15 year shortfall before systems are up and running for renewables/nuclear and we don't want to go cap in hand to Russia to cover our shortfalls. Is that the reason you support fracking, to cover this raging energy gap? or do you believe we will eventually get carbon capture { personally I wouldn't go forward with fracking on a whim and a hope as fragile as that}. Just interested in the subtlety of the problem. What do you think?
and if it is a shortfall, why not austerity in energy conservation of energy as an alternative to fracking?
We do it in economics , we could have better systems of conservation especially in building regulations and commercial buildings etc.
Post edited at 10:43
In reply to MargieB:
and if we do need fracking, why drill here in the UK,adding to the world's CO2 emmission- target failure, rather than buy from America which has already invested into this technology-and in the meantime the Uk invests in more CO2 free technologies/systems?
and if we do need fracking, why drill here in the UK,adding to the world's CO2 emmission- target failure, rather than buy from America which has already invested into this technology-and in the meantime the Uk invests in more CO2 free technologies/systems?
In reply to MargieB:
Because shipping the gas over the atlantic would generate even more CO2 than fracking it locally? Then again how much CO2 is being generated from the fossil fuels used to ship the "renewable" wood chips over from Louisiana to Drax?...
We need to invest much more in post-fossil fuels solutions, but we can't do that if our economy crumbles along with our short- and mid- term energy supply.
> and if we do need fracking, why drill here in the UK,adding to the world's CO2 emmission- target failure, rather than buy from America which has already invested into this technology-and in the meantime the Uk invests in more CO2 free technologies/systems?
Because shipping the gas over the atlantic would generate even more CO2 than fracking it locally? Then again how much CO2 is being generated from the fossil fuels used to ship the "renewable" wood chips over from Louisiana to Drax?...
We need to invest much more in post-fossil fuels solutions, but we can't do that if our economy crumbles along with our short- and mid- term energy supply.
In reply to MargieB:
Margie - how have you found out what the various parties policies actually are? My brief googling has turned up very little concrete information - most manifestos not published yet.
Without that I'd vote for a party that will build Nuclear now, and push the development of tidal - the Severn Estuary is ripe for development, and should be a massive part of the energy solution for the South West of these isles.
Margie - how have you found out what the various parties policies actually are? My brief googling has turned up very little concrete information - most manifestos not published yet.
Without that I'd vote for a party that will build Nuclear now, and push the development of tidal - the Severn Estuary is ripe for development, and should be a massive part of the energy solution for the South West of these isles.
In reply to MargieB: I suspect you will find little in the way of hard commitments as large energy projects are very expensive and likely to end up on people's bills. And the electorate en masse sadly only think short term no matter if the long term benefits
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I said "I was still working out" the manifestos. Using my name like that does feel like a patronising attitude.! Apart from that, I appreciate your comments and I agree the parties seem to be unformed in their energy policies as yet. It reminds me of the independence vote here where policies were designed on the hoof. Perhaps this is the same process and tapping into the views of the electorate might form the parties' manifestos rather than us just voting for a manifesto already constructed by the party faithful. That's what happened at the independence referendum.
An observation/ Inverness was the fastest growing city in Europe and in the last 10-15 years has seen 40 percent growth. No commercial building has any renewable technology incorporated. Domestic housing has roof insulatation under par for this climate and the snow melts off quickly, whereas good insulation would not allow this to happen if there was buiding regulations of merit and thus enforceable on these big building contractors.
I said "I was still working out" the manifestos. Using my name like that does feel like a patronising attitude.! Apart from that, I appreciate your comments and I agree the parties seem to be unformed in their energy policies as yet. It reminds me of the independence vote here where policies were designed on the hoof. Perhaps this is the same process and tapping into the views of the electorate might form the parties' manifestos rather than us just voting for a manifesto already constructed by the party faithful. That's what happened at the independence referendum.
An observation/ Inverness was the fastest growing city in Europe and in the last 10-15 years has seen 40 percent growth. No commercial building has any renewable technology incorporated. Domestic housing has roof insulatation under par for this climate and the snow melts off quickly, whereas good insulation would not allow this to happen if there was buiding regulations of merit and thus enforceable on these big building contractors.
Post edited at 08:38
In reply to puppythedog:
That's the problem with the modern Green party. I've been sympathetic to the Green agenda since, ooh, the mid eighties but the current party has turned into a bunch of Trotskyites and are therefore unelectable.
That's the problem with the modern Green party. I've been sympathetic to the Green agenda since, ooh, the mid eighties but the current party has turned into a bunch of Trotskyites and are therefore unelectable.
In reply to MargieB:
No offence intended, seemed like a reasonably normal way to reply to somebody on here, apologies.
No offence intended, seemed like a reasonably normal way to reply to somebody on here, apologies.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Well, that's OK then. Thanks for replying.
Well, that's OK then. Thanks for replying.
In reply to MargieB:
I'm voting Green as I always do in the hope that one of the larger parties will notice and try to steal my vote by green-ing up their policies at the next general election.
However, I already know that I'm going to vote Green at the next general election as well. Is the joke on them, or me?
I'm voting Green as I always do in the hope that one of the larger parties will notice and try to steal my vote by green-ing up their policies at the next general election.
However, I already know that I'm going to vote Green at the next general election as well. Is the joke on them, or me?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I wouldn't vote for the Greens, they are well meaning but unrealistic on too many things. It would be a wasted vote, just a protest vote.
I wouldn't vote for the Greens, they are well meaning but unrealistic on too many things. It would be a wasted vote, just a protest vote.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...