• 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

Visage said:
Yes, we get it - Unproven technology is fine if its nuclear, but a disqualification if its anything else.
Click to expand...

Find something that can achieve the necessary generation density and availability I'll take a look. Which is why I'm a fracking enthusiast too.
 
Yes, let's ask the oil company what it thinks of alternative fuel sources. Brilliant.
 
Visage said:
Out of interest, how much energy was generated last year by molten-salt based nuclear reactors?

Doesnt need to be exact. Just round it to the nearest percent.....
Click to expand...

Zero. It doesn't mean there isn't resonable expectation in coming decades.
In the meantime people need realistic energy supply from the current state of the art and it isn't wind, solar or 'biomass'.
 
c9c6b6f131979edb9e5dd794679d61b0.jpg
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
New technologies could solve that, Thorium being one. Fusion might not necessarily according to the joke thirty years from now.
Click to expand...

let's hope so.

however, back to the point which wasn't really a critique of nuclear, but was a critique of someone saying they're happy paying up to £100+margin/mwh of elec from nuclear but then criticises anything else termed "green" for requiring a far lesser subsidy. that someone being you of course. if you're going to make "price" your principle (as you claim to do when assessing "green" tech), you absolutely have to slate the edf nuclear deal and your own post of 3 years ago, the gvt who negotiated it that you voted for, and the chancellor who approved it who you championed.

it's the problem with any tendentious approach - being desperate to make the point against something you've decided you don't like, you miss the inconsistencies in your own positioning. pretending to be a green activist when considering imported "biomass" is another example given you're slagging off that line of argument in any other capacity. it's an approach devoid of principle though to be fair I imagine it's relatively well used on football forums.
 
I sometimes wonder about the thought behind starting this thread.

HGW rarely, if ever, comments on anything else on this forum, he's certainly not a frequent contributor to the main sub-forum of this site, the Wolves one. With that in mind it seems a little odd to me that he chose this site as the place to start such a discussion, I wonder what the motive was? Is he trying to educate us football following folk? Or is there another reason he's chosen not to have this discussion elsewhere, you know like maybe a forum who's main focus is climate change? Not up to the required standard of debate when surrounded by a more informed audience perhaps?

Is there any way to see what percentage of someone's contributions are in any given forum or thread? Could make interesting viewing for some.
 
We all have wider interests though.
The general chatter can be one of the more interesting and wide ranging sub forums. There's a lot of information here, and there are probably a lot of people who post in this section more than in others, or in the rest even.

I find a lot of information, facts, opinions, jokes and discussions that I am less likely to come across offline. I enjoy the vast majority, even if I disagree. Sometimes my own perspectives are challenged by threads/posts. I've discovered new music, heard brilliant and godawful jokes, and in general found out new things or ideas.

It highlights how many of us are more rounded people, with views held and debated on a broad range of matters.
 
MARKakaJIM said:
I sometimes wonder about the thought behind starting this thread.

HGW rarely, if ever, comments on anything else on this forum, he's certainly not a frequent contributor to the main sub-forum of this site, the Wolves one. With that in mind it seems a little odd to me that he chose this site as the place to start such a discussion, I wonder what the motive was? Is he trying to educate us football following folk? Or is there another reason he's chosen not to have this discussion elsewhere, you know like maybe a forum who's main focus is climate change? Not up to the required standard of debate when surrounded by a more informed audience perhaps?

Is there any way to see what percentage of someone's contributions are in any given forum or thread? Could make interesting viewing for some.
Click to expand...

lol, i've made maybe 2 football posts in the last 3 years. i'm 95% music, 3% here, 2% random. not that i'm a prolific poster
 
I very rarely post in the Wolves section as I know jack shit about football, whereas (like everyone else) I know everything about climates and coal and wind and stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top