• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

HAzelGroveWolf said:
I just hoped you would see the absurdity.
Click to expand...

isn't the real absurdity you trying to point the finger at alan on the basis of a contract between 2 private companies?

note the drax project only happened because of the explicit support of the UK government since it required a hm treasury guarantee. that would have needed to be rubber stamped and fully approved by the energy minister and ultimately the chancellor, both members of the party that you've just admitted voting for. perhaps you should start your critique a lot closer to home.

and whether you agree with it or not, the project would have had to comply with both carbon reduction and sustainability criteria to get that guarantee. amusing though it is that you seem to be criticising a project for not being 'green' enough.
 
nimrod said:
isn't the real absurdity you trying to point the finger at alan on the basis of a contract between 2 private companies?

note the drax project only happened because of the explicit support of the UK government since it required a hm treasury guarantee. that would have needed to be rubber stamped and fully approved by the energy minister and ultimately the chancellor, both members of the party that you've just admitted voting for. perhaps you should start your critique a lot closer to home.

and whether you agree with it or not, the project would have had to comply with both carbon reduction and sustainability criteria to get that guarantee. amusing though it is that you seem to be criticising a project for not being 'green' enough.
Click to expand...

Doesn't stop it being a stupid idea though, a fudge to bend the rules. I am fully aware of the coalition and the residual tory policy post election. I think, to quote Mr Cameron, they may be better persuaded to ditch the 'green crap'.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Doesn't stop it being a stupid idea though, a fudge to bend the rules. I am fully aware of the coalition and the residual tory policy post election. I think, to quote Mr Cameron, they may be better persuaded to ditch the 'green crap'.
Click to expand...

why don't you explain why you think the energy secretary and treasury are so stupid then rather than simply saying they are?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Doesn't stop it being a stupid idea though, a fudge to bend the rules. I am fully aware of the coalition and the residual tory policy post election. I think, to quote Mr Cameron, they may be better persuaded to ditch the 'green crap'.
Click to expand...

and just to be clear, nobody forced the government to support the drax project. the HMT guarantee is only offered where normal commercial financing is NOT available. so any suggestion that the personnel you voted for weren't actively making sure this project happened is claptrap. if they wanted the project to fail, they could have simply not offered the guarantee. instead, they made it happen.
 
Pretty much a financially driven decision, listening to R4 this morning.
 
SSE on R5 made comments concerning 'greener' more economic options available. They are taking a nearby gas fired station out of mothballs. They are also looking at increasing renewable generation.
 
Yeah, mainly because of green taxes, or non-green taxes I should say.
 
What is cool is what is happening on Eigg Island (Inner Hebrides). There was a programme about it on R4 yesterday afternoon. They generate 90% of they're own electricity using renewable energy. They have a small wind farm, a hydro dam and solar panels. There is also a large battery facility for storing surplus energy during the winter and supplementing in the summer (as wind generates the most energy I think *edit I think I'm wrong about this). They have 2 diesel generators for contingency and emergency use to plug that last 10%. I think they're looking at harnessing energy from the sea and building a hydrogen thingy too.

Prior to 2008 each house had to have its own generator if they wanted power, and they could only really use them for a couple of hours a day. Now, each house has power 24hs a day. They are capped with how much they can use but it is pretty much all coming from renewable sources.

I think they said the cost of setting all of this up was cheaper than the cost of connecting the island up to the Scottish power grid, which would have been about £5m. They have had a lot of funding and grants and carried out of lot of the manual labour and construction work themselves - they called it 'sweat equity' and was probably worth about £500k.

It was all the brain child of one guy (I forget his name) who just decided to move their after he retired.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05v7tqq
 
Shows what can be achieved once you drop the dogma.
 
nimrod said:
and just to be clear, nobody forced the government to support the drax project. the HMT guarantee is only offered where normal commercial financing is NOT available. so any suggestion that the personnel you voted for weren't actively making sure this project happened is claptrap. if they wanted the project to fail, they could have simply not offered the guarantee. instead, they made it happen.
Click to expand...

Coalition conditions gave the Libdems DECC, plus some latent wet tory green policy would fail to see the nonsense. The doppy idea was the claim that the wood could be considered as 'carbon neutral' to fudge emissions claims. Achieves nothing at the expense of efficiency and capital costs. Is the oil burnt in shipping any less emissive?
 
machin05 said:
What is cool is what is happening on Eigg Island (Inner Hebrides). There was a programme about it on R4 yesterday afternoon. They generate 90% of they're own electricity using renewable energy. They have a small wind farm, a hydro dam and solar panels. There is also a large battery facility for storing surplus energy during the winter and supplementing in the summer (as wind generates the most energy I think *edit I think I'm wrong about this). They have 2 diesel generators for contingency and emergency use to plug that last 10%. I think they're looking at harnessing energy from the sea and building a hydrogen thingy too.

Prior to 2008 each house had to have its own generator if they wanted power, and they could only really use them for a couple of hours a day. Now, each house has power 24hs a day. They are capped with how much they can use but it is pretty much all coming from renewable sources.

I think they said the cost of setting all of this up was cheaper than the cost of connecting the island up to the Scottish power grid, which would have been about £5m. They have had a lot of funding and grants and carried out of lot of the manual labour and construction work themselves - they called it 'sweat equity' and was probably worth about £500k.

It was all the brain child of one guy (I forget his name) who just decided to move their after he retired.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05v7tqq
Click to expand...

You might be able to scale that to the rest of the UK when you have de-industrialised it to the same level. I'm sure China and India will not be taking the same approach. Fantasy.
 
Nah, it actually happened.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Coalition conditions gave the Libdems DECC, plus some latent wet tory green policy would fail to see the nonsense. The doppy idea was the claim that the wood could be considered as 'carbon neutral' to fudge emissions claims. Achieves nothing at the expense of efficiency and capital costs. Is the oil burnt in shipping any less emissive?
Click to expand...

you're just making stuff up now. it was a treasury backed scheme. the guarantee can only be provided on the condition normal sources of finance are not available. so without the scheme, no project - who was the chancellor who signed it off? if the scheme was so stupid, why did he support it?

the absurdity is you pointing the finger at anyone else for a project that you've effectively voted for, nevermind you then critiquing it for lacking green credentials that you don't believe in anyway. if you've got a problem with the project, go and criticise the chancellor - the one you voted for.

and again, you only ever look at one side of an argument - on fuel sourcing, where is the coal sourced from that is displaced by the converted plant? doesn't about half drax coal come from south africa and siberia? how do you think it gets to the uk? the requirement for a conversion is that it makes carbon savings - ie is better than what it replaces. so it doesn't have to be 100% green, only sufficiently greener. drax's estimate, all in, was something like an 80% carbon saving. the people that approved the project clearly believed it. and you, implicitly, by voting for a party that approved it.
 
Massive oil spoil in Santa Barbara, California, if anyone wants to google it.
 
I'm glad you're not in charge of any large scale industrial projects. They'd never see the light of day because you'd consider them unrealistic or unworkable.

If we want it to happen we will make it happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top