logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

richard
#1 Posted : 24 February 2013 08:50:09(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,935
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 293 time(s) in 245 post(s)
In September 2008, we were arguing - with more than a hint of desperation – that the Conservatives should address the energy crisis. And we were not only concerned with the politicians but the failure of the party to take an interest in this vital issues.

An aspect of that failure, we wrote, is the apparent willingness of the party to leave the debate on "fuel poverty" arising from high energy prices to the dysfunctional and increasingly aggressive gaggle of Labour back-benchers and the economically illiterate delegates at the TUC conference, now in full flow – all variously demanding a windfall tax on the energy companies.

Now, on top of comments from Booker, we have the hypocritical Independent on Sunday whingeing about "successive governments playing politics over energy".




Read here... http://www.eureferendum....ogview.aspx?blogno=83652

Edited by user 24 February 2013 08:50:41(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Ravenscar
#2 Posted : 24 February 2013 10:13:16(UTC)
Ravenscar

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 892
Location: The North

Thanks: 108 times
Was thanked: 117 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Quote:
which planet than paper is actually on.


It ain't in this solar system that's for sure.


There is one simple remedy, tell the EU and the LCP diktat to bugger off - and at the same time inform Brussels that we are binning the green agenda.

But that would be in another world - Tories would rather cut off their noses, than spite the EU.
john in cheshire
#3 Posted : 24 February 2013 10:14:33(UTC)
john in cheshire

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61
United Kingdom
Location: cheshire

Thanks: 80 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I'm currently examining the possibilities of being self-sufficient in my home power supply. I don't actually think the government; whichever one we have; will solve the problem and unfortunately, I am taking the pessimists view that we will still be in the EU for the next ten years or so. And therefore governed by their ludicrous plans.

What is preventing me from committing any money though is that there are just too many questions I haven't yet been able to answer. Maybe this path is still barely trodden and I don't really want to be a pioneer. However, I think it's probably the only practical answer, and a way of bypassing the stupidities of central government. I'd also like to have something in place in advance of the power outages because once they begin, everyone will be clamouring for things such as generators, batteries and such; it will be like the first day of the winter sales with people fighting over these things.
richard
#4 Posted : 24 February 2013 11:25:45(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,935
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 293 time(s) in 245 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post
Quote:
which planet than paper is actually on.


It ain't in this solar system that's for sure.


There is one simple remedy, tell the EU and the LCP diktat to bugger off - and at the same time inform Brussels that we are binning the green agenda.

But that would be in another world - Tories would rather cut off their noses, than spite the EU.



Actually, it ain't that easy. Having made the decision not to upgrade on desulphurisation, the operators have been thrashing their plant while doing only running maintenance ... effectively running the plant into the ground. For them now to continue running, they would all need substantial investment in refits, with a long period of closure. Chances are that this would not be economic.

mmatis
#5 Posted : 24 February 2013 12:23:59(UTC)
mmatis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 429
Man
United States
Location: Cocoa, Florida

Thanks: 84 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 24 post(s)
So where is Owen Paterson when one REALLY needs him? Out horsing around, perchance?

It must be hell to be the ONLY sane politician in a nation like the UK...
}:-]
Ravenscar
#6 Posted : 24 February 2013 15:13:31(UTC)
Ravenscar

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 892
Location: The North

Thanks: 108 times
Was thanked: 117 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Quote:
Chances are that this would not be economic.


"Economic" for whom?

A shut down for coal = shut down of British industry and manufacturing.

Yes indeed, they [power utilities] have been thrashing the generators and combustion chambers to death but surely some of it is salvageable and in the end run, is it not better to refit or rebuild on present locations with all resources available - the water/road/rail/transmission infrastructure is all in place - surely that makes economic sense.

Nuclear is not going to happen but coal and gas can and [gas used as heating - directly into houses] should be the future.
D W Buxton
#7 Posted : 24 February 2013 16:26:44(UTC)
D W Buxton

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 18/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 73

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Just last week I got an e-mail letter from that Dave Cameron claiming that now he had done something to keep down the cost of living by "freezing" Council Tax and putting as cap on rail fares. But he then wenbt on to say that he was now going to "take action on sky high energy bills". This was to use the "Energy Bill" to compel energy companies to put customers on "the cheapest variable rate". But I do not understand, bills are still going up and now they are bringing back the "standing charge" to make sure most of their profit is safe. Then the carbon tax is due inncreasing the price still further. And let's face it, it is government policy to have expensive energy, rationing by price so where are the savings to come from? Especially as we are told we, the People will have to pay for upgrades to the system in higher bills. Where have all the extra profits gone as no upgrades have taken place for many a year. Any sensible company always makes provision for improvement by holding onto a proportion of the profits for such work. In short, the letter was a pack of lies, from start to finish. Roll on the Harrogate Agenda.
richard
#8 Posted : 24 February 2013 16:27:20(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,935
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 293 time(s) in 245 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post
Quote:
Chances are that this would not be economic.


"Economic" for whom?

A shut down for coal = shut down of British industry and manufacturing.

Yes indeed, they [power utilities] have been thrashing the generators and combustion chambers to death but surely some of it is salvageable and in the end run, is it not better to refit or rebuild on present locations with all resources available - the water/road/rail/transmission infrastructure is all in place - surely that makes economic sense.

Nuclear is not going to happen but coal and gas can and [gas used as heating - directly into houses] should be the future.




Economic, as in it would be more cost-effective to build new plant.

comet
#9 Posted : 24 February 2013 16:30:02(UTC)
comet

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 20/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 613
United Kingdom
Location: gloucestershire

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 64 time(s) in 53 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post

There is one simple remedy, tell the EU and the LCP diktat to bugger off - and at the same time inform Brussels that we are binning the green agenda.

But that would be in another world - Tories would rather cut off their noses, than spite the EU.


It's not so simple as the EU bossing them about and them being afraid to confront it.

British governments have been determined to lead the way on this silliness and have helped influence the EU, which in turn influences the UK. You can't see them as separate from the EU, and don't forget the Civil Service.

Confronting the EU would mean getting out of it, and as we've seen, the political classes are determined not to do that.

Nor is there much point singling out any of the main parties as the main culprit for the mess energy policy is in. They've been pretty much in total agreement on this for the past ten years at least.

 1 user thanked comet for this useful post.
letmethink on 24/02/2013(UTC)
letmethink
#10 Posted : 24 February 2013 17:00:43(UTC)
letmethink

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 273
Man
Location: Essex

Thanks: 71 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 28 post(s)
Originally Posted by: comet Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post

There is one simple remedy, tell the EU and the LCP diktat to bugger off - and at the same time inform Brussels that we are binning the green agenda.

But that would be in another world - Tories would rather cut off their noses, than spite the EU.


It's not so simple as the EU bossing them about and them being afraid to confront it.

British governments have been determined to lead the way on this silliness and have helped influence the EU, which in turn influences the UK. You can't see them as separate from the EU, and don't forget the Civil Service.

Confronting the EU would mean getting out of it, and as we've seen, the political classes are determined not to do that.

Nor is there much point singling out any of the main parties as the main culprit for the mess energy policy is in. They've been pretty much in total agreement on this for the past ten years at least.



spot on.

We have been leading the way on this since Houghton got his sticky little fingers all over the IPCC in 1988.

Actually, our 'leading the way on this' makes the charge of the light brigade look like a carefully measured advance.

The government of the UK has a legally binding obligation to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 and the so-called 'independent' bodies set up to oversee this are stuffed to the gunwales with the worst kind of eco-fascist.

This is a slow march to economic oblivion which is approaching the point where it becomes irreversible.

This is the point of the Climate Change Act, not an unfortunate by-product and for as long as it remains unrepealed, every word this government spouts about resolving the country's malaise is a lie and every action they take is a fraud.

I often have occasion to ask my greentard/uneducated 'friends' three very simple questions: -

1. Name all the countries in the world whose governments have a legal obligation to reduce their country's CO2 emissions by 80%

2. What effect will reducing the UK emissions of CO2 by 80% have on global temperature (if that was indeed measurable and you accept the CAGW argument)?

3. From whence was the target for an 80% reduction in CO2 derived?

Not difficult to imagine the response . . .






mmatis
#11 Posted : 24 February 2013 17:36:32(UTC)
mmatis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 429
Man
United States
Location: Cocoa, Florida

Thanks: 84 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: richard Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post
Quote:
Chances are that this would not be economic.


"Economic" for whom?

A shut down for coal = shut down of British industry and manufacturing.

Yes indeed, they [power utilities] have been thrashing the generators and combustion chambers to death but surely some of it is salvageable and in the end run, is it not better to refit or rebuild on present locations with all resources available - the water/road/rail/transmission infrastructure is all in place - surely that makes economic sense.

Nuclear is not going to happen but coal and gas can and [gas used as heating - directly into houses] should be the future.




Economic, as in it would be more cost-effective to build new plant.


Our local utility is building a new plant on the site of an old one:
http://www.fpl.com/envir...ant/cape_canaveral.shtml
Seems to make sense, since the right-of-ways for the high voltage distribution lines already exist, and those lines are largely re-useable. They are totally replacing the substation at the plant.
Ravenscar
#12 Posted : 24 February 2013 18:45:58(UTC)
Ravenscar

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 892
Location: The North

Thanks: 108 times
Was thanked: 117 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Quote:
Economic, as in it would be more cost-effective to build new plant.


Isn't that just what I intimated? Build new plant on existing sites - more cost effective, though most coal is imported perhaps new build would have to be coastal plant.


Any road, it is arguing over spilt milk - the current loonies running the show are so wired in to the green lunacy - Britain is going into stand by and beyond that blank out and very soon.


Welcome to the dark ages.
Niall Warry
#13 Posted : 24 February 2013 21:34:28(UTC)
Niall Warry

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 243
United Kingdom
Location: Somerset

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 23 post(s)
Looks like an investment in candle manufacturers would be wise!
mmatis
#14 Posted : 24 February 2013 21:42:30(UTC)
mmatis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 429
Man
United States
Location: Cocoa, Florida

Thanks: 84 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post
Quote:
Economic, as in it would be more cost-effective to build new plant.


Isn't that just what I intimated? Build new plant on existing sites - more cost effective, though most coal is imported perhaps new build would have to be coastal plant.


Any road, it is arguing over spilt milk - the current loonies running the show are so wired in to the green lunacy - Britain is going into stand by and beyond that blank out and very soon.


Welcome to the dark ages.

Literally!
nemesis
#15 Posted : 24 February 2013 22:46:54(UTC)
nemesis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 46
United Kingdom
Location: Middlesex

Thanks: 31 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Niall Warry Go to Quoted Post
Looks like an investment in candle manufacturers would be wise!


http://www.cityunslicker.../2012/11/what-crock.html

....'In 2008 the EU added 50% to the import price of candles. The BRC ran an almost identical article to their current one. And they were right. The price of candles rose to a point where they aren't worth stocking.

In 2007 BQ industries used to carry 20+ varieties of Christmas candles at £2 - £5 a go.
This year, just 1. And that is priced a bit too high for comfort at £5.95 for a small candle. So we have a tiny, tiny holding.

We don't buy dearer French or Belgium candles instead of Chinese ones. We just don't buy candles full stop. We won't buy high priced mug and coaster gift sets either. People won't buy them.
We'll stock something else.

The surprise is that the EU has the right to increase taxes, for up to 5 years, by any amount it likes, without majority member consent. While you're over there Dave, maybe look into this unnecessary inflation adding rise in homewares?'
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.6.1 | YAF © 2003-2013, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.205 seconds.