Rolling back the Green Taxes

Latest Articles

Rolling back the Green Taxes
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 14 4:23 pm Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

No, it is another instance of politicians not being able to make up their minds.

You say no, but then don't offer an alternative explanation. Is that a 'no, that's right' or a 'no, the real reason is...'?

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15600

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 8:37 am Post subject:
It means no, they are not pandering to the decreasing number of people who vote. It is because they can't make up their minds. The new aircraft carriers that will come into service in a few years time (without aircraft) will cost more because the minister changed his mind about the aircraft twice and so some expensive additions had to be made.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 8:58 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

It means no, they are not pandering to the decreasing number of people who vote.

Just read that back to yourself for a second, think about it, and take notice of how politicians gear up for 2015. I don't think it a coincidence that unpopular decisions tend to be left until after an election, or not carried out at all, in the case of the previous government.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4563
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 11:29 am Post subject:
Why would Carbon Capture be a vote loser? And as it seems Fracking will go ahead,Carbon Capture will also be a benefit. I agree with Chris,they don`t know their arse from their head,or more likely their head`s are so far up their arse`s they cannot see daylight.

Piggyphile

Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 891
Location: Galicia

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 12:24 pm Post subject:

As I understand it, there is no a full scale carbon capture scheme operating anywhere in the world. It all seems to be theoretical. I don't know how we move industrial quantities of carbon dioxide around the world under pressure and inject it into gas tight strata without it migrating elsewhere or escaping over the long term. It all sounds very fuel hungry and expensive to me.

Sounds like fossil fuel sellers grasping at straws to me.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 12:43 pm Post subject:

Piggyphile wrote:

I don't know how we move industrial quantities of carbon dioxide around the world under pressure and inject it into gas tight strata without it migrating elsewhere or escaping over the long term.

I expect the atmospheric mixing will be sufficient that we don't need to move carbon dioxide about, and it is my understanding that under pressure, it remains solid so the strata need not be gas tight.
It also occurred to me that that place in Antarctica is not far off cold enough that carbon dioxide will drop out of the atmosphere by itself...

And of course, storing carbon dioxide is not the only way of capturing carbon... we could just grow a load of plants...

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 3:39 pm Post subject:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Why would Carbon Capture be a vote loser?

It involves spending money, on something that won't necessarily benefit a lot of people, at least directly.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4563
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 4:50 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Why would Carbon Capture be a vote loser?

It involves spending money, on something that won't necessarily benefit a lot of people, at least directly.

Well they spent a damn side more to boost the American economy when they choose to buy wood chips.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 5:27 pm Post subject:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Rob R wrote:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Why would Carbon Capture be a vote loser?

It involves spending money, on something that won't necessarily benefit a lot of people, at least directly.

Well they spent a damn side more to boost the American economy when they choose to buy wood chips.

Yes, but they've kept fairly quiet about that.

jamanda
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 35056
Location: Devon

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 5:59 pm Post subject:
UKIP have the amswer.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 6:01 pm Post subject:

Jamanda wrote:

UKIP have the amswer.

Keep up...
He's been kicked out of the party for being too nasty.

Last edited by Hairyloon on Sun Jan 19, 14 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 6:08 pm Post subject:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Rob R wrote:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Why would Carbon Capture be a vote loser?

It involves spending money, on something that won't necessarily benefit a lot of people, at least directly.

Well they spent a damn side more to boost the American economy when they choose to buy wood chips.

That is a lot less easier to miss/hide, and is likely to be more of a vote winner in the current climate of green energy.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4563
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 14 6:43 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Rob R wrote:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

Why would Carbon Capture be a vote loser?

It involves spending money, on something that won't necessarily benefit a lot of people, at least directly.

Well they spent a damn side more to boost the American economy when they choose to buy wood chips.

That is a lot less easier to miss/hide, and is likely to be more of a vote winner in the current climate of green energy.

I don`t think so,and neither do the Greenies,even they realise its More not Less of a Carbon Footprint.
It was only done to appease the EU Carbon Reduction figure`s,which is a bit of a joke when Germany will not come near with their building of Lignite powerstations and France going fracking.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15600

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 7:19 am Post subject:

The importation of woodchip from the US is also unpopular with foresters as it can very easily spread pests and diseases. We cannot produce enough wood chip ourselves using current methods, but the best way of increasing the amount, using brash, is too difficult and expensive to chip at the moment.

Most of the 'good ideas' they come up with as vote winners don't bear close examination; carbon capture being another. Hairyloon, I don't think carbon dioxide will liquefy at even Arctic temperatures without pressure.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 9:37 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Hairyloon, I don't think carbon dioxide will liquefy at even Arctic temperatures without pressure.

No, it doesn't liquify; under atmospheric pressure it goes straight to solid.[/picky]
I did not say that it did, I said that it was close: without looking it up, I think the freezing temperature of carbon dioxide (at 1 atm) is about -90C, and they found an Antarctic mountain down at -84C, so not far off... except, being up a mountain the pressure is lower, and so is the freezing point.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6

View Latest Posts