• 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

lemonjelly said:
Ah, but the tories are the ones we can trust with the budget, aren't they?
Click to expand...

rhetorical i guess. though the 'alternative' under blair was no better at planning for capacity replacement or in managing generation cost. tories budget management seems to comprise of trying to cut it if it's a cost* and praying for revenue.

* unless it's IDS universal tax credit system which is seemingly allowed to go over-budget for as much as it can.
 
From greenlight to operational in three years?

Makes a mockery of our efforts to build nuclear.
 
Goodbye to any hopes of Government driven green energy initiatives:

CnV03_MWIAAIQUA.jpg
 
BBC reporting that EDF expected to give hinkley the go-ahead in its current status at a planned board meeting. surprising in the brexit circumstances nevermind any of the pre-existing issues it has faced.
 
leedswolf said:
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/07/22/d-day-for-hinkley-next-week/
Click to expand...

to call a board meeting is essentially to approve it in its current form. the bizarre thing being that since brexit at least two key "financing" issues have happened - sterling has dropped, which means the project financials have considerably weakened (on the basis most construction costs are not £UK denominated) and UK gvt credit rating has fallen, which means more credit risk to the project. both of these issues would be typically priced.

it is more than possible that the draft agreements will allow for adjustments to the indicative tariff (ie the reported tariff (£92.50/mwh) goes up to reflect exchange movement and reduction in the credit rating of the principal customer) but it's pretty unclear based on what's been reported to date what the position is.
 
a comfortable win for Chinese pressure

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-edf-nuclear-power-station-deal-a7308376.html

i like this bit:
Asked about security concerns Mr Clark said: "It was right for the UK Government to look seriously at all the components of the deal and what we have decided is that for critical infrastructure generally, we want to make sure our powers in this country are comparable to those of others to be able to check that national security considerations are taken into account.

"What we've done here in Hinkley is required that EDF, the principle operator, guarantees, makes a commitment, that they won’t dispose of their stake without the government's consent."

He added: "In future, all other nuclear power stations will be subject to the same regime."

it's really hard to believe that the originally negotiated position (& any initial tender documents) did not automatically provide the government with a veto, never mind consent provisions (which typically include "consent not to be unreasonably withheld"), on the subsequent disposal of a nuclear power plant. he's either bullshitting the public (ie nothing's changed) or highlighting past incompetence. take your pick.

and if that really is the only substantial change, why even go public with 'second thoughts'? from a political perspective, totally bizarre

and are there nutjobs out there who still want to blame the EU for this?
 
Not sure I'd put much faith in any article written by someone who doesn't know the difference between principle and principal.
 
yeah, it's shocking how many misspells get into top class journalistic pieces. and i nearly corrected it, but as it's straight from the article..

no faith needed here though, it's been approved with little change in terms other than the one mentioned by the minister which you'd think should have been standard. there may be other reasons but i've not trawled other pieces to find out yet.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...nths-to-save-the-planet-was-always-just-a-fa/

Now those “100 months” are up, it has prompted the diligent Paul Homewood to publish on his website, Not A Lot of People Know That, a set of graphs meticulously compiled from official data. The show what has actually happened to the earth’s climate in these past eight years. Despite the 2016 El Nino spike, now rapidly declining, satellite measurements still show that the trend in global temperatures has not risen for 18 years.

The Guardian's online article with the headline "THE FINAL COUNTDOWN" and a caption "100 months to save the world" above a vast picture of the Earth viewed from space
This went well
Far from the ice caps melting, the total amount of polar ice in the world is almost exactly the same in today’s Arctic and Antarctic as it was when satellite records began in 1979. Despite all those computer models predicting otherwise, the rise in global sea levels has been barely detectible, not having accelerated in more than a century. Despite Hurricane Matthew, there has been no increase in the incidence or power of tropical cyclones. Tornadoes in the US have been at a historic low level. The number of severe droughts across the world since the first half of the 20th century has actually declined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top