Rolling back the Green Taxes

Latest Articles

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

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

Author

Message

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: 15598

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.

Hairyloon

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 9:40 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

We cannot produce enough wood chip ourselves using current methods...

How many of our city trees are properly pollarded? Almost none AFAIK.
How much wood chip production could come from domestic gardens if people were sensibly encouraged to grow it?

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 6:26 pm Post subject:
So, we've established that electorate are stupid and the politicians are the same. You get what you pay/vote for, as they say.

Hairyloon

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 7:10 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

So, we've established that electorate are stupid...

Have we established that?
I'm pretty sure that at least half of them are of above average intelligence...

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 7:45 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

Rob R wrote:

So, we've established that electorate are stupid...

Have we established that?
I'm pretty sure that at least half of them are of above average intelligence...

No, I wasn't being entirely serious. But if vote winning policies are as rubbish as suggested then it begs the question as to why they win votes.

Hairyloon

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 7:48 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

But if vote winning policies are as rubbish as suggested then it begs the question as to why they win votes.

It is a bit of a puzzle.
Perhaps it comes back to the same old problem: who else is there to vote for?

oldish chris

Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 4148
Location: Comfortably Wet Southport

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 7:57 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

Mistress Rose wrote:

We cannot produce enough wood chip ourselves using current methods...

How many of our city trees are properly pollarded? Almost none AFAIK.
How much wood chip production could come from domestic gardens if people were sensibly encouraged to grow it?

I have a vague recollection of some guy at CAT working out if urban self-sufficient types could keep themselves warm by growing their own wood fuel. IIRC, a coupe of acres of willow would just about do it.

Considering the amount of embodied energy in a small tree and then the amount of energy required to chip, dry, transport etc., I don't think that it would be viable.

There must be dozens of better uses, from growing mushrooms to composting.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 14 8:16 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

Rob R wrote:

But if vote winning policies are as rubbish as suggested then it begs the question as to why they win votes.

It is a bit of a puzzle.
Perhaps it comes back to the same old problem: who else is there to vote for?

The half that are above average would appear to be the obvious choice.

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

View Latest Posts