Green energy Scheme will cost consumers £5bn
Discussion
£5Bn paid to despoil the lanscape and appease token 'environmentalists'
Extracts from a Commons Public accounts committee meeting on the subject below
A government scheme to promote green energy will cost consumers £5bn over the next 5 years.
The Commons public accounts committee complained that the so-called "renewables obligation" did not represent value for money as it was at least four times more expensive as other means of reducing Carbon dioxide emissions.
The government is committed to getting 10 per cent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010. To achieve this it has ordered electricity suppliers to obtain more renewable electricity each year, the cost of which is passed on to consumers.
Extracts from a Commons Public accounts committee meeting on the subject below
A government scheme to promote green energy will cost consumers £5bn over the next 5 years.
The Commons public accounts committee complained that the so-called "renewables obligation" did not represent value for money as it was at least four times more expensive as other means of reducing Carbon dioxide emissions.
The government is committed to getting 10 per cent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010. To achieve this it has ordered electricity suppliers to obtain more renewable electricity each year, the cost of which is passed on to consumers.
WHAT?
Why don't our government subsidise green energy.
All this forcing energy producers/distributors to be greener or produce more will do is put cost onto consumers.
Like Brown saying Opec should invest more! Why should they? They are not a service but a business, and they make their profit. If we can't control our usage, it's our fault.
This government should be pro-active in green energy, using the so called "environmental impact tax(fuel duty)" to support it.
UK public just end up getting screwed at both ends, over taxed by BLiar and Brown, and then shafted by their policy on energy at the other!
Arse.
Dave
Why don't our government subsidise green energy.
All this forcing energy producers/distributors to be greener or produce more will do is put cost onto consumers.
Like Brown saying Opec should invest more! Why should they? They are not a service but a business, and they make their profit. If we can't control our usage, it's our fault.
This government should be pro-active in green energy, using the so called "environmental impact tax(fuel duty)" to support it.
UK public just end up getting screwed at both ends, over taxed by BLiar and Brown, and then shafted by their policy on energy at the other!
Arse.
Dave
GreenV8S said:
Remind me why we have turned our backs on nuclear power?
Because lentil munches think it is all dirty and dangerous. At the same time they will campaign against cars and in favour of giant windmills. Without it once crossing their tiny little minds that if climate change is as important as they think it is, we should be investing in nuclear power, one of the few the only LARGE scale means of reducing Co2 emissions.
Has anyone had a peek @ their utility bills?
With gas/oil at current prices and the lead time on nuclear absobloodylutely enormoose what alternatives are available short term?
It looks like our generating capacity is not going to meet demand = even higher prices and brown-outs.
The future may well be orange - from candle light.
With gas/oil at current prices and the lead time on nuclear absobloodylutely enormoose what alternatives are available short term?
It looks like our generating capacity is not going to meet demand = even higher prices and brown-outs.
The future may well be orange - from candle light.
JagLover said:
GreenV8S said:
Remind me why we have turned our backs on nuclear power?
Because lentil munches think it is all dirty and dangerous. At the same time they will campaign against cars and in favour of giant windmills. Without it once crossing their tiny little minds that if climate change is as important as they think it is, we should be investing in nuclear power, one of the few the only LARGE scale means of reducing Co2 emissions.
No. I don't think 'lentil munchers' have anything to do with it, sorry to burst the bubble. I think it's because governments don't necessarily trust nuclear energy, particularly after Chernobyl, the largest and most catastrophic man made environmental disaster. And given the current government seems determined to make the UK a terrorist target, large scale nuclear power might not be the best idea.
I would add that I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear power, but think that the idea needs to be very carefully considered, due to the dangerous nature of it.
>> Edited by 968 on Thursday 15th September 11:44
968 said:
GreenV8S said:
Remind me why we have turned our backs on nuclear power?
Because lentil munches think it is all dirty and dangerous. At the same time they will campaign against cars and in favour of giant windmills. Without it once crossing their tiny little minds that if climate change is as important as they think it is, we should be investing in nuclear power, one of the few the only LARGE scale means of reducing Co2 emissions.
No. I don't think 'lentil munchers' have anything to do with it, sorry to burst the bubble. I think it's because governments don't necessarily trust nuclear energy, particularly after Chernobyl, the largest and most catastrophic man made environmental disaster. And given the current government seems determined to make the UK a terrorist target, large scale nuclear power might not be the best idea.
I would add that I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear power, but think that the idea needs to be very carefully considered, due to the dangerous nature of it.
>> Edited by 968 on Thursday 15th September 11:44
I'd add to that dealing with the waste, noone wants to take it and store it.
968 said:
due to the dangerous nature of it.
>> Edited by 968 on Thursday 15th September 11:44
Nuclear power isn't dangerous, it produces tiny amounts of waste and no greenhouse emissions.
As for Chernobyl, the effects have been dramatically less long lasting than had been predicted.
As I stated on another thread I have a mate who is married to Ms Hiroshima, it's a thriving modern city ontop of an area that was nuked.....harldy what the lentilists would have you believe.
timmy30 said:
As I stated on another thread I have a mate who is married to Ms Hiroshima, it's a thriving modern city ontop of an area that was nuked.....harldy what the lentilists would have you believe.
Yes Hiroshima, with it's dramatic increase in cancers and leukaemias since the dropping of the A bomb. Not a good example.
968 said:
No. I don't think 'lentil munchers' have anything to do with it, sorry to burst the bubble. I think it's because governments don't necessarily trust nuclear energy, particularly after Chernobyl, the largest and most catastrophic man made environmental disaster. And given the current government seems determined to make the UK a terrorist target, large scale nuclear power might not be the best idea.
I would add that I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear power, but think that the idea needs to be very carefully considered, due to the dangerous nature of it.
>> Edited by 968 on Thursday 15th September 11:44
Fine how about this, soon all the Nuclear power stations currently in operation (generating 23pc of the country's energy) in the UK will reach the end of their operational life, if they are replaced by gas/coal the UK's emissions of Co2 will rise substantially.
If they are replaced by 'renewables' it will be prohibitively expensive.
If we take the problem of climate change seriously we have to ask how we can generate large amounts of power without C02 emissions at a reasonable cost.
In terms of cost, a study has shown that new modern designs of Nuclear power station, may be cheaper then Gas (even taking into account decommissioning costs)
As for security risks, aren't gas pipelines very vulnerable to terrorist attack?
JagLover said:
Remind me why we have turned our backs on nuclear power?
Because lentil munches think it is all dirty and dangerous. At the same time they will campaign against cars and in favour of giant windmills. Without it once crossing their tiny little minds that if climate change is as important as they think it is, we should be investing in nuclear power, one of the few the only LARGE scale means of reducing Co2 emissions.
Actually, probably the biggest problem is capital investment and waste disposal. A nuclear power station is blinking expensive and very few power companies have shareholders who can stomach long term investments. Windmills and other stuff can be bought cheaper and got online quicker. Governments can also see a faster return for a smaller subsidy. The whole industry is geared towards quick returns - and we've seen the result of that in California.
Do you really believe that a power company would decide not to invest in a nuclear power station just because some hippies are unhappy? Greed not green issues are the problem here.
Tuna said:
Do you really believe that a power company would decide not to invest in a nuclear power station just because some hippies are unhappy? Greed not green issues are the problem here.
That is not my argument.
Due to their extremely long pay back period Nuclear power plants require active government promotion in order to be commercially viable.
The problem is not ageing hippies, but that Lentilists control much of our media, this would make readopting Nuclear power difficult for any government let alone one as media driven and short termist as the current one.
JagLover said:
Do you really believe that a power company would decide not to invest in a nuclear power station just because some hippies are unhappy? Greed not green issues are the problem here.
That is not my argument.
Due to their extremely long pay back period Nuclear power plants require active government promotion in order to be commercially viable.
The problem is not ageing hippies, but that Lentilists control much of our media, this would make readopting Nuclear power difficult for any government let alone one as media driven and short termist as the current one.
Sorry but your last statement is just bollox.
Sorry, which lentilists control the media? Rupert Murdoch? It's just nonsense to blame issues that you don't agree with on some mythical cabal of evil 'lentilists'
Forgive my ignorance, but to the physically minded amongst us.
Is the effective reprocessing/disposal of reactor waste product a technology problem that we are likely to solve in the short to mid term?
The outcome of that would significantly sway my opinion as to the validity of nuclear energy as an ongoing proposition.
Is the effective reprocessing/disposal of reactor waste product a technology problem that we are likely to solve in the short to mid term?
The outcome of that would significantly sway my opinion as to the validity of nuclear energy as an ongoing proposition.
968 said:
As I stated on another thread I have a mate who is married to Ms Hiroshima, it's a thriving modern city ontop of an area that was nuked.....harldy what the lentilists would have you believe.
Yes Hiroshima, with it's dramatic increase in cancers and leukaemias since the dropping of the A bomb. Not a good example.
I'd say it was a very good example indeed. The place took a direct hit from an A-bomb, the lentilists were saying that life would never exist in the area ever again. We're talking a direct nuclear detonation and a few decades later it's a thriving modern city.
968 said:
Sorry, which lentilists control the media? Rupert Murdoch? It's just nonsense to blame issues that you don't agree with on some mythical cabal of evil 'lentilists'
Apart from a few bastions of freedom in the print media, our media is controlled by Lentilists who set the news agenda and who relentlessly promote their own brand of politics.
JagLover said:
Sorry, which lentilists control the media? Rupert Murdoch? It's just nonsense to blame issues that you don't agree with on some mythical cabal of evil 'lentilists'
Apart from a few bastions of freedom in the print media, our media is controlled by Lentilists who set the news agenda and who relentlessly promote their own brand of politics.
Such as? Name these lentilists. Bastions of freedom? Do you seriously mean Rupert Murdoch?
timmy30 said:
I'd say it was a very good example indeed. The place took a direct hit from an A-bomb, the lentilists were saying that life would never exist in the area ever again. We're talking a direct nuclear detonation and a few decades later it's a thriving modern city.
A thriving city, with a thriving incidence of cancers and leukaemias. Or is that just 'lentilists' propaganda? I dunno, those oncologists, you can't trust them, can you? Sellafield, incidence of cancers and leukaemias there? or is that more hysterical and ungrateful parents?
968 said:
I'd say it was a very good example indeed. The place took a direct hit from an A-bomb, the lentilists were saying that life would never exist in the area ever again. We're talking a direct nuclear detonation and a few decades later it's a thriving modern city.
A thriving city, with a thriving incidence of cancers and leukaemias. Or is that just 'lentilists' propaganda? I dunno, those oncologists, you can't trust them, can you? Sellafield, incidence of cancers and leukaemias there? or is that more hysterical and ungrateful parents?
Okay lets try this third time lucky shall we.
Lentilists said that life would never ever exist in the area due to radiation. It is now a thriving modern city of over 500k inhabitants who contrary to what you think are almost entirely healthy. It took a direct blast.We're not talking about low level exposure following a leak, we are talking a direct blast and the after effects have been nothing like as bad as the lentilist propaganda would have you believe.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff