Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Solar power is a threat to it according to the conservatives. Fracking isn't apparently according to those same conservatives that earlier banned it cause of it's negative environmental impact. What's going on here?" Solar was the Tories big renewables policy under Cameron. He was told it was inadequate and should be a part of an overall strategy. He ignored it. Then they scrapped their election promises anyway. Now they appear to be blaming themselves. Still. The main thing is they get re-elected at any cost. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. " Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. " Fracking causes air,soil and water pollution. Farming may continue but for how long. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Fracking causes air,soil and water pollution. Farming may continue but for how long." Depends on the depth of the well and what equipment is being used. Well supplied gas engines/pumps or DGB will produce less emissions than diesel. Water soluble chemicals for downhole reduce soil contamination. It will produce less pollutants than the current landfill sites we have dotted around the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking." Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years." Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations." We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Solar power is a threat to it according to the conservatives. Fracking isn't apparently according to those same conservatives that earlier banned it cause of it's negative environmental impact. What's going on here?" Just seems different members of the Tory party have different views on the subject. Hardly a revelation in my opinion. I don't know, but would expect most parties contain members with different views on the subject too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? " I don't know if fracking is the solution or not but it seems for a good while yet we will need gas so it's a case of extract it here or import it from abroad which will be even more harmful | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? " Not sure what you're suggesting by asking the percentage of climate change caused by the UK. As if we should shirk our responsibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? Not sure what you're suggesting by asking the percentage of climate change caused by the UK. As if we should shirk our responsibility. " Yeah never got that argument too much Also theres more localised effects that I should have mentioned but someone did earlier,such as the increased pollution.I mean we’re starting to see massive problems caused by pollution that was my worry with fracking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? " would think since the start of the industrial revolution a hell of a lot of climate change has been caused by the uk be it at home here in the islands of great britain or throughout the world where we plundered natural resources from throughout our empire sometimes in a less than environmental manner if ypu are specifically talking about now we are still very much the dirtyman of europe and no amount of carbon offsetting will change that . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? Not sure what you're suggesting by asking the percentage of climate change caused by the UK. As if we should shirk our responsibility. " The UK is currently compliant with most carbon reduction policies. We in the UK are trying our hardest to reduce our carbon footprint, yet this relies on importing hydrocarbons and materials from other countries. What we lose here we just add to some other country then add again in it's trasmission and transportation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? would think since the start of the industrial revolution a hell of a lot of climate change has been caused by the uk be it at home here in the islands of great britain or throughout the world where we plundered natural resources from throughout our empire sometimes in a less than environmental manner if ypu are specifically talking about now we are still very much the dirtyman of europe and no amount of carbon offsetting will change that ." We can't change that. We can change going forward, however it's proven that the large scale wind and tidal projects are not adequate. Nuclear is the most viable option, yet we seem to disregard it as the evil of the bunch. We are currently facing an energy crisis. Our options are limited. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? would think since the start of the industrial revolution a hell of a lot of climate change has been caused by the uk be it at home here in the islands of great britain or throughout the world where we plundered natural resources from throughout our empire sometimes in a less than environmental manner if ypu are specifically talking about now we are still very much the dirtyman of europe and no amount of carbon offsetting will change that . We can't change that. We can change going forward, however it's proven that the large scale wind and tidal projects are not adequate. Nuclear is the most viable option, yet we seem to disregard it as the evil of the bunch. We are currently facing an energy crisis. Our options are limited. " Seems like some people won't give on fossil fuel solutions and keep denying responsibility for global warming until temperatures here start hitting 50°c plus like they are in other countries. Even then they will be wanting to blame others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? would think since the start of the industrial revolution a hell of a lot of climate change has been caused by the uk be it at home here in the islands of great britain or throughout the world where we plundered natural resources from throughout our empire sometimes in a less than environmental manner " WTF is it about some people that they always have a down on the country, our people, our history etc. To be fair, it's not just British people - America is full of self-haters too. It must be a Western thing. Anyway, FYI, Britain comes fifth on the all-time scale, with 5% of historic carbon emissions from 1750-2020. Germany is fourth, then Russia, China with 14%, and the USA in first with 25% of historic emissions. "if ypu are specifically talking about now we are still very much the dirtyman of europe and no amount of carbon offsetting will change that ." Wrong again. Germany is the dirty man of Europe, coming in 6th in the list of current carbon emitting countries with 2% of global carbon emissions. Britain, Italy, France, and Poland come in at 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th, each with around 1% of current emissions. China is by far and away the world's biggest carbon producer, with 29% of yearly emissions, producing more carbon than the next four countries in the list USA, Russia, India, and Japan combined. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm all for Fracking. NG/FG offers far more energy per SQM than solar would. As said above, farming can still continue around the wellsite. Farming won't continue when the planet heats up beyond habitable temperatures though. Which is a downside to fracking. Sustainable Wells won't last beyond the 10 year point. I very much doubt the planet will become uninhabitable within the next 100 years. Pumping additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is what we're trying to avoid to stop the planet becoming uninhabitable. Fracking is bad for the environment, bad for climate change, bad for British people. Good for multinational fossil fuel corporations. We have an abundance of frac gas in the UK that could be easily tapped into to reduce the current energy crisis. What percentage of world climate change is caused by the UK? would think since the start of the industrial revolution a hell of a lot of climate change has been caused by the uk be it at home here in the islands of great britain or throughout the world where we plundered natural resources from throughout our empire sometimes in a less than environmental manner if ypu are specifically talking about now we are still very much the dirtyman of europe and no amount of carbon offsetting will change that . We can't change that. We can change going forward, however it's proven that the large scale wind and tidal projects are not adequate. Nuclear is the most viable option, yet we seem to disregard it as the evil of the bunch. We are currently facing an energy crisis. Our options are limited. Seems like some people won't give on fossil fuel solutions and keep denying responsibility for global warming until temperatures here start hitting 50°c plus like they are in other countries. Even then they will be wanting to blame others." I can see your point, but like I said above we are facing an energy crisis in the UK as is many other European countries. Give it another few months and the headlines will covering the coldest winter and how people can't afford to heat thier homes, charge thier electric vehicles or do a washing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. " Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. " You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. " Ah was this the manufacturing that we did have in the UK that we decimated as it wasn’t deemed ecolologicly friendly, so rather than evole an progress we just done away with it all together. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Solar power is a threat to it according to the conservatives. Fracking isn't apparently according to those same conservatives that earlier banned it cause of it's negative environmental impact. What's going on here?" Internal politics. Just like Brexit. An unthinking leadership and membership leading to huge long-term consequences. Starting with the slow dismantling of due process, judicial independence and Parliamentary sovereignty and the environment and the NHS. Ironically under the pretext of leaving the EU to "protect" what is being threatened by our own government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Ah was this the manufacturing that we did have in the UK that we decimated as it wasn’t deemed ecolologicly friendly, so rather than evole an progress we just done away with it all together. " We didn't move away from manufacturing due to environmental reasons. Again, making a statement without any data to back it. Manufacturing was being subsidised in the 70's and 80's. Globalisation provided the cheaper goods that the masses demanded. Financial and professional services filled the economic gap with a shift to much higher value, lower volume, manufacturing. Those who suffered were the workers who were not retrained and for whom no alternatives were generated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences?" Fracking is an easy cost effective option. The geological surveys have already been done. The well site set up time can be done in weeks. If you remember this was already put forward many years ago, but vetoed. Due to the current energy crisis, the opportunity has arisen again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences? Fracking is an easy cost effective option. The geological surveys have already been done. The well site set up time can be done in weeks. If you remember this was already put forward many years ago, but vetoed. Due to the current energy crisis, the opportunity has arisen again. " I think they were about to seal them permanently when this crises started and had to get permission to delay. Not sure how much work is involved in getting them up and running but at least they are not starting from scratch. If memory serves, there was issues with earth tremors though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences? Fracking is an easy cost effective option. The geological surveys have already been done. The well site set up time can be done in weeks. If you remember this was already put forward many years ago, but vetoed. Due to the current energy crisis, the opportunity has arisen again. " You have just made this up. How many well heads are needed? How much gas needs to be pumped? How does it get transported? Where to? What is the cost of the equipment and staff to do all of that? Where do they come from? What is the lead time for this? Do you have the response to any of these questions? Have you even considered them? Don't repeat sponsored headlines as if they were fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences? Fracking is an easy cost effective option. The geological surveys have already been done. The well site set up time can be done in weeks. If you remember this was already put forward many years ago, but vetoed. Due to the current energy crisis, the opportunity has arisen again. I think they were about to seal them permanently when this crises started and had to get permission to delay. Not sure how much work is involved in getting them up and running but at least they are not starting from scratch. If memory serves, there was issues with earth tremors though" The "earthquakes" off the coast of Blackpool. The acid used (at the time) could also have made an impact to the water table, however water soluble alternatives are now available. I've hit a nerve with some on here as I'm deemed a "pro frac ludite". I work in this very sector and I know what CFM can be potentially gathered. We are ramping up, as we are increasing production in our North Sea facilities. Fracking is an option we have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences? Fracking is an easy cost effective option. The geological surveys have already been done. The well site set up time can be done in weeks. If you remember this was already put forward many years ago, but vetoed. Due to the current energy crisis, the opportunity has arisen again. You have just made this up. How many well heads are needed? How much gas needs to be pumped? How does it get transported? Where to? What is the cost of the equipment and staff to do all of that? Where do they come from? What is the lead time for this? Do you have the response to any of these questions? Have you even considered them? Don't repeat sponsored headlines as if they were fact." Rather than try to explain to you, please go and have a look at the Halliburton website which will give all the information you require on hydraulic fracking, the equipment used, the set up time, and the expected flow rates. We already have the equipment readily available in the UK. It's not difficult to source this information, Google is your friend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That trope again, “why should we care about carbon emissions, when country (choose name of country), doesn’t?” You don’t realise that those polluting countries are currently building all these solar panels and other green tech and using them now?, putting them ahead of us technologically? They become superpowers, we fall behind, then it will take trillions to catch up. Only the short sighted will advocate fracking. Yet our current re-newable energy projects are not adequate to sustain our country. Fracking will offer a solution to our current and up and coming problem. It will be a significantly cheaper than its green counterpart. At the end of the day the masses will dictate the outcome, and you can guarantee they will opt for the cheapest option. You think that fracking will be scaled to the levels that we need in a shorter period of time at lower cost than renewables? Based on what? Do "the masses" make the best decisions? What's the point of government? To just do whatever the masses wish, regardless of the consequences? Fracking is an easy cost effective option. The geological surveys have already been done. The well site set up time can be done in weeks. If you remember this was already put forward many years ago, but vetoed. Due to the current energy crisis, the opportunity has arisen again. You have just made this up. How many well heads are needed? How much gas needs to be pumped? How does it get transported? Where to? What is the cost of the equipment and staff to do all of that? Where do they come from? What is the lead time for this? Do you have the response to any of these questions? Have you even considered them? Don't repeat sponsored headlines as if they were fact. Rather than try to explain to you, please go and have a look at the Halliburton website which will give all the information you require on hydraulic fracking, the equipment used, the set up time, and the expected flow rates. We already have the equipment readily available in the UK. It's not difficult to source this information, Google is your friend. " Rather than explain to me secondhand I should read directly from one of the most ethically challenged companies in the history of industry with a direct interest in encouraging the activity on the advise of someone who also has a direct interest? Sure 
How about reading almost anything else from scientists and economists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right?" I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. " Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion..."No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you. It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
"If something is complex it will be "long-winded". Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity. If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two. Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment. It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue the rights and wrongs of fracking pretty much forever. Of course it has some downsides (many of which were overblown by Russian propaganda) but there is one very simple fact that no-one can escape. Britain needs to keep the lights on NOW! Wind and solar are all very well for long term carbon reduction but cannot and will not produce the electricity required for the foreseeable future. And that is before we factor in the maniacal dash for electric cars. Britain (and the rest of Europe) needs gas now which leaves a simple choice. Buy it off Putin or get fracking." This is the same "argument" made by the fossil fuel industry denying climate change. The creation of a false equivalence. Fracking does not "keep the lights on now". Even if you use capitalisation and an exclamation mark. It's just not true that you can pump any meaningful amount of gas from fracking in a short time. Of course, if you just choose to ignore the available information then you can just continue to believe what you wish. What defines the cost of gas that we pay? How much additional gas will the most optimistic production rate of fracking produce compared to what is needed? Wind and solar production can be ramped up just as quickly, as can energy storage. Multiple nuclear reactors could have been pumping power into the grid a decade ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position."People will naturally avoid complexity. Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now. As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
"Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term? Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored. Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue the rights and wrongs of fracking pretty much forever. Of course it has some downsides (many of which were overblown by Russian propaganda) but there is one very simple fact that no-one can escape. Britain needs to keep the lights on NOW! Wind and solar are all very well for long term carbon reduction but cannot and will not produce the electricity required for the foreseeable future. And that is before we factor in the maniacal dash for electric cars. Britain (and the rest of Europe) needs gas now which leaves a simple choice. Buy it off Putin or get fracking. This is the same "argument" made by the fossil fuel industry denying climate change. The creation of a false equivalence. Fracking does not "keep the lights on now". Even if you use capitalisation and an exclamation mark. It's just not true that you can pump any meaningful amount of gas from fracking in a short time. Of course, if you just choose to ignore the available information then you can just continue to believe what you wish. What defines the cost of gas that we pay? How much additional gas will the most optimistic production rate of fracking produce compared to what is needed? Wind and solar production can be ramped up just as quickly, as can energy storage. Multiple nuclear reactors could have been pumping power into the grid a decade ago." Who owns the biggest wind farms in the uk ? It’s not the uk 
The biggest mistake this country has ever made was relying on other countries for our utilities 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue the rights and wrongs of fracking pretty much forever. Of course it has some downsides (many of which were overblown by Russian propaganda) but there is one very simple fact that no-one can escape. Britain needs to keep the lights on NOW! Wind and solar are all very well for long term carbon reduction but cannot and will not produce the electricity required for the foreseeable future. And that is before we factor in the maniacal dash for electric cars. Britain (and the rest of Europe) needs gas now which leaves a simple choice. Buy it off Putin or get fracking. This is the same "argument" made by the fossil fuel industry denying climate change. The creation of a false equivalence. Fracking does not "keep the lights on now". Even if you use capitalisation and an exclamation mark. It's just not true that you can pump any meaningful amount of gas from fracking in a short time. Of course, if you just choose to ignore the available information then you can just continue to believe what you wish. What defines the cost of gas that we pay? How much additional gas will the most optimistic production rate of fracking produce compared to what is needed? Wind and solar production can be ramped up just as quickly, as can energy storage. Multiple nuclear reactors could have been pumping power into the grid a decade ago. Who owns the biggest wind farms in the uk ? It’s not the uk
The biggest mistake this country has ever made was relying on other countries for our utilities
"Is Halliburton British? Why can't British companies generate renewable energy? Are the wind or waves or tides or Sun owned by foreign companies? Does the fact that our biggest wind farms are owned by foreign companies make them more expensive than fossil fuel energy production? How much of the fuel used for our fossil energy production is domestically owned? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...""I will never know". What won't I know? I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
"You can know, but you are choosing not to. You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know. It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades. It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up. Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?"Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years? 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
"Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing. However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will. How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry? You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this? Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?"Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions. You know what my position is on the matter. If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, solar power is 'a threat' to farm land, because it's more profitable to install a huge solar bank than it is to use the land for farming. Fracking on the other hand isn't a threat to farm land, because it gets gas from under the ground without touching the fertile top few feet. Or have I misunderstood you?" It's uneconomical to farm crops in the UK. May as well use it for something useful, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
"Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered. You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that. That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 29/08/22 14:16:29]" We have one of the largest wind farms off the coast from us. It's still not sufficient enough. What happened to the tidal projects that appear on the news every 10 years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated."Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 29/08/22 14:16:29] We have one of the largest wind farms off the coast from us. It's still not sufficient enough. What happened to the tidal projects that appear on the news every 10 years?" Party propaganda during general elections to win voters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion "Do you like the attention? 
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?"Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me. Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I snipped the rest Quote:- Is Halliburton British? Why can't British companies generate renewable energy? Are the wind or waves or tides or Sun owned by foreign companies? Does the fact that our biggest wind farms are owned by foreign companies make them more expensive than fossil fuel energy production? How much of the fuel used for our fossil energy production is domestically owned? End quote If the windmills are so much cheaper why is the electricity as expensive as the same from gas ? I understand that gas generated is more expensive because you use one fuel to generate another but surely wind and solar should be cheaper? Instead a company such as ecotricity is getting 6 million in subsidies but selling the leccy at the same market price as everyone else. Why should the uk be funding them they are a private business who if goes through the hoop they will just walk away " The electricity is cheaper from wind turbines and solar than that generated for gas. The UK is not subsidising renewable energy companies. It has not for some time. Look it up. Wholesale pricing is set by the most expensive source. Gas is being subsidised by renewables. I think that you have made some assumptions without all of the correct information. Put the question into Google. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site "Actually, I was sat on the loo. You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know? "I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements. Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me. Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be. Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me. I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion. I still think you are a valid contributer to forums. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
"You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?"Easy your still on hook. I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried. I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
"So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices? If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices?
If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be?"Easy it is an interesting topic, but I lost interest earlier this afternoon. You seem to have knack of bombarding the political forum with demands, hence nobody can be arsed engaging you with. It's always your point of view, and you belittle anyone the says otherwise. We get it your an intelligent guy, you have a life experiences that nobody else can relate to. You seem to have alot of pent up aggression reading into your replys. If I have overstepped the mark, I'm sincerely sorry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices?
If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be?
Easy it is an interesting topic, but I lost interest earlier this afternoon.
You seem to have knack of bombarding the political forum with demands, hence nobody can be arsed engaging you with.
It's always your point of view, and you belittle anyone the says otherwise.
We get it your an intelligent guy, you have a life experiences that nobody else can relate to.
You seem to have alot of pent up aggression reading into your replys.
If I have overstepped the mark, I'm sincerely sorry.
"I really have no "pent up aggression". Is that how you interpret debate. Do you not ask a questions or provide information? A complicated subject raises many questions, does it not? Should they not be discussed? I suppose if you are unable or unwilling to examine your argument and explain the process and information that brings you a conclusion, then being asked to may be interpreted as being "bombarded". I can't really help that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices?
If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be?
Easy it is an interesting topic, but I lost interest earlier this afternoon.
You seem to have knack of bombarding the political forum with demands, hence nobody can be arsed engaging you with.
It's always your point of view, and you belittle anyone the says otherwise.
We get it your an intelligent guy, you have a life experiences that nobody else can relate to.
You seem to have alot of pent up aggression reading into your replys.
If I have overstepped the mark, I'm sincerely sorry.
I really have no "pent up aggression". Is that how you interpret debate. Do you not ask a questions or provide information?
A complicated subject raises many questions, does it not? Should they not be discussed?
I suppose if you are unable or unwilling to examine your argument and explain the process and information that brings you a conclusion, then being asked to may be interpreted as being "bombarded". I can't really help that. "To be honest if it was me and you sitting having a drink you, might get your point accross. I'm unwilling to examine the argument, as you will "bombard" the post and create demands which I can't be arsed to argue against on a swingers forum. I'm in London frequently, so should you fancy educating me, just send me a message. I will listen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices?
If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be?
Easy it is an interesting topic, but I lost interest earlier this afternoon.
You seem to have knack of bombarding the political forum with demands, hence nobody can be arsed engaging you with.
It's always your point of view, and you belittle anyone the says otherwise.
We get it your an intelligent guy, you have a life experiences that nobody else can relate to.
You seem to have alot of pent up aggression reading into your replys.
If I have overstepped the mark, I'm sincerely sorry.
I really have no "pent up aggression". Is that how you interpret debate. Do you not ask a questions or provide information?
A complicated subject raises many questions, does it not? Should they not be discussed?
I suppose if you are unable or unwilling to examine your argument and explain the process and information that brings you a conclusion, then being asked to may be interpreted as being "bombarded". I can't really help that.
To be honest if it was me and you sitting having a drink you, might get your point accross.
I'm unwilling to examine the argument, as you will "bombard" the post and create demands which I can't be arsed to argue against on a swingers forum.
I'm in London frequently, so should you fancy educating me, just send me a message. I will listen. "That wasn't meant in an aggressive or threatening way, I meant over a coffee or whatever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices?
If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be?
Easy it is an interesting topic, but I lost interest earlier this afternoon.
You seem to have knack of bombarding the political forum with demands, hence nobody can be arsed engaging you with.
It's always your point of view, and you belittle anyone the says otherwise.
We get it your an intelligent guy, you have a life experiences that nobody else can relate to.
You seem to have alot of pent up aggression reading into your replys.
If I have overstepped the mark, I'm sincerely sorry.
I really have no "pent up aggression". Is that how you interpret debate. Do you not ask a questions or provide information?
A complicated subject raises many questions, does it not? Should they not be discussed?
I suppose if you are unable or unwilling to examine your argument and explain the process and information that brings you a conclusion, then being asked to may be interpreted as being "bombarded". I can't really help that.
To be honest if it was me and you sitting having a drink you, might get your point accross.
I'm unwilling to examine the argument, as you will "bombard" the post and create demands which I can't be arsed to argue against on a swingers forum.
I'm in London frequently, so should you fancy educating me, just send me a message. I will listen. "As you haven't engaged with the topic at all and only wanted to talk about me for some reason, I don't think that I'll clutter up the thread any further. Perhaps someone can actually provide some information explain what makes freaking such a good idea or why farmers should try to grow food on their land if there is nobody to harvest it or a reasonable price to make it worthwhile. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. Easiest way to avoid contradictory information. Just don't read it
I am impatient with people who parrot simple "solutions" to complex problems with absolute certainty.
Clearly working in the particular sector gives you an unbiased view. You also must have an equally expert knowledge of competing sectors and come to an objective conclusion...
No Easy, I'm just avoiding your long winded explaining and why I should listen to you.
It's nothing personal, you have been forum stalwart for many years, but you have to realise not everyone will agree with you.
If something is complex it will be "long-winded".
Avoiding that is avoiding the complexity.
If you don't want to look at how much Halliburton spends on lobbying and how much that they spend on fossil fuel infrastructure compared to renewables and how much they make in profit from the two.
Renewables are cheaper to the customer, generate less profit and require new capital investment.
It doesn't benefit Halliburton. Energy crises benefit them. They have done as much as any other company to delay renewables investment and putting us in this position.
People will naturally avoid complexity.
Why go for the complex long winded solution when we have a simple solution available now.
As soon as the cold weather kicks in and human lives start suffering, the benefits of fracking will become more and more alluring.
Why look at the data and realise that the "simple" solution provided by those with a vested interest is not as simple as it sounds in the long or the short term?
Short-term benefits are always "more alluring" if the consequences are ignored.
Again, fracking is not a short term solution either, but as you don't want to look at the reasons for that, you'll never know...
"I will never know". What won't I know?
I'm all for green and re-newable energy, but its not providing what the country requires.
You can know, but you are choosing not to.
You have literally said that you won't read about what you don't know.
It is not providing what the country requires because its introduction has been deliberately delayed for decades.
It is cheaper now that fossil fuels were before prices went up.
Again,how long will it actually take to ramp up fracking? Where will the human and material resources come from? How will it be transported? What will the best case output be and what will the sale price to the customer be?
Come on do you really think thy can establish a re-newable energy structure to sustain the UK in the next 25 years?
Yes. That answer comes with as much evidence as you are providing.
However, the reality is that the data to back it up does exist. The limitation is not about resource or capability, it is about will.
How much do you know about the renewable industry in all its many forms and how it compares to the fossil fuel industry?
You have skipped my questions, I noticed. How do you know that fracking will provide such a fast, cheap solution if you haven't considered any of this?
Let's add another one. Where does the water come from and what is done with it once it's contaminated?
Easy come on I'm not skipping your questions.
You know what my position is on the matter.
If you want to put money on the UK being self sustaining on re-newable energy in the next 25 years, you knock yourself out.
Well, you are doing exactly that. You have literally said that you are not going to look at any contradictory information and you have, in fact, not answered.
You are making a statement about fracking providing a cheap, quick fix with no evidence to back it except for a website from a company that will profit from fracking and not responding to any of the questions that arise from that.
That's not even the normal pedantry of this forum. It's what you have stated.
Your getting yourself excited over my meager opinion
Do you like the attention?
You are really just avoiding very direct and pertinent questions now. Why do you believe that I'm "excited"?
It's more mundane than that. You made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You cannot, it seems.
Nothing more to be said, right?
Yet here you are, waiting eagerly for me to post so can write a well thought out rebuttal, which unfortunately will be totally wasted on me.
Why the animosity towards me Easy, after all it's just a swinger site
Actually, I was sat on the loo.
You think I was waiting for you?
That's quite an egocentric view, don't you think? Here you are too, eh?
Still no answers I see. Have you got some that you just aren't sharing, or do you just not want to know?
I don't think anyone is really interested in your bowel movements.
Why you needed to disclose that is beyond me.
Why are you demanding answers, a man of your calibre should have know by now what the outcome would be.
Anyway as I said you need to stop getting upset at people like me.
I'm just a profile on swinger site, that unfortunately for you totally disregards your opinion.
I still think you are a valid contributer to forums.
You claimed I was waiting for you to post. You now know what the real circumstances of my reply were. Lucky you
I guess I am "demanding" answers simply to highlight the fact that you are unable or unwilling to provide them.
I am, once again, merely pointing out that you have made a statement without adequate consideration or information and appear to be so wedded to it that you will not even consider reading anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs.
I'm not annoyed or upset with you but such behaviour is of interest. It leads our society down very difficult paths.
From my perspective I cannot fathom why someone would not wish to have more information about a topic that they appear to have a strong opinion about? If I agreed with you, would you read what was written to use in your own arguments?
Easy your still on hook.
I doubt my comments will be downfall of society, but if they are, at least you know you tried.
I admire your enthusiasm though, it must be difficult trying to get your point accross on a swinger site.
So do you actually believe what you wrote about asking providing cheap gas that will make a significant difference to our energy prices?
If you are trying to troll me, which is what has happened since refusing to actually discuss the point at hand, what do you gain from it? That's a separate but interesting topic in itself. Does it give you pleasure or enjoyment to believe that you might have upset me by keeping me "on the hook"? Why do you think that might be?
Easy it is an interesting topic, but I lost interest earlier this afternoon.
You seem to have knack of bombarding the political forum with demands, hence nobody can be arsed engaging you with.
It's always your point of view, and you belittle anyone the says otherwise.
We get it your an intelligent guy, you have a life experiences that nobody else can relate to.
You seem to have alot of pent up aggression reading into your replys.
If I have overstepped the mark, I'm sincerely sorry.
I really have no "pent up aggression". Is that how you interpret debate. Do you not ask a questions or provide information?
A complicated subject raises many questions, does it not? Should they not be discussed?
I suppose if you are unable or unwilling to examine your argument and explain the process and information that brings you a conclusion, then being asked to may be interpreted as being "bombarded". I can't really help that.
To be honest if it was me and you sitting having a drink you, might get your point accross.
I'm unwilling to examine the argument, as you will "bombard" the post and create demands which I can't be arsed to argue against on a swingers forum.
I'm in London frequently, so should you fancy educating me, just send me a message. I will listen.
As you haven't engaged with the topic at all and only wanted to talk about me for some reason, I don't think that I'll clutter up the thread any further.
Perhaps someone can actually provide some information explain what makes freaking such a good idea or why farmers should try to grow food on their land if there is nobody to harvest it or a reasonable price to make it worthwhile."Ah well I did try and reach out. I doubt anyone will want to engage with you Easy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is already opposition for a proposed solar farm in West Lindsay. Not by the locals but by the energy suppliers stating that the panels that will be used are inadequate rendering the project unfeasible. " Is that the Kwasi Kwateng proposed sites? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is already opposition for a proposed solar farm in West Lindsay. Not by the locals but by the energy suppliers stating that the panels that will be used are inadequate rendering the project unfeasible. Is that the Kwasi Kwateng proposed sites?" I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, but there are posters up everywhere where we are. It's also been discussed at the monthly farmers AGM. They are certainly oppsing the site. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can your body so without electricity, or food? Some folk need to understand to learn how to compromise. "The planet won't be compromising. It took billions of years of slow change for CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere and fixed in plants and animals and ultimately sequestered in fossil fuels. The resulting slow climate change got us to a planet that we could live in. Dumping it back in the atmosphere in a few hundred years and expecting no real difference doesn't feel sensible. We have, actually been "compromising" for decades. At a certain point we run out of road. The money and resources exist for a wholesale shift to renewables and associated storage. We are choosing not to as we continue to "compromise". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"idiots will continue to deny the huge benefits of replacing energy production with clean efficient renewables .... total idiots will still demand that dirty energy such as fracking and nuclear be imposed on the country. "The idiots are the one's posting on swinger forum expecting people to listen to them and immediately change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was more referring to being prepared to bite the bullet and use nuclear power as a compromise. Fossil fuels need to go but just using wind and tide is stupid and not enough for what society needs." Nuclear power is not strictly necessary, but I would agree with you and say preferable. The reality is that nuclear power has not been held up by large-scale objections. It's been held up by government incompetence and security concerns over China. The construction lead times are long let alone planning and working out what to do with the waste. A little surprised that the Rolls Royce small modular reactors seem to be taking so long to develop considering they have been running in submarines for decades. Thorium salt reactors could be a better solution but are only now receiving some attention. They don't produce material for nuclear weapons as waste, so haven't been that interesting until now... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was more referring to being prepared to bite the bullet and use nuclear power as a compromise. Fossil fuels need to go but just using wind and tide is stupid and not enough for what society needs." Nuclear should be used to get us to the point we can generate everything through renewables. If Costa Rica can do it. We should be able to. It's not just "wind and tide". The solution involves, reducing usage through efficiency, generation through tidal hydro, wave, solar, geothermal, wind energy etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was more referring to being prepared to bite the bullet and use nuclear power as a compromise. Fossil fuels need to go but just using wind and tide is stupid and not enough for what society needs. Nuclear should be used to get us to the point we can generate everything through renewables. If Costa Rica can do it. We should be able to. It's not just "wind and tide". The solution involves, reducing usage through efficiency, generation through tidal hydro, wave, solar, geothermal, wind energy etc. " Fair. It requires some rethinking but it no longer requires any fundamental breakthroughs or new technologies. We just have to do it rather than spending the time and effort and resources on repeating the mistakes of the past with marginally more efficiency. The other half of the problem is why UK farmers cannot make a living farming. International trade opening up food supplies benefitting from economies of scale? Unfair competition on lower standards or subsidies? Do we require some inclusion of UK produced foodstuffs from all producers? The industry did seem to specialise in higher value produce but have markets closed to us through Brexit. How long until new ones are opened up? Too long? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. " So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job." So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was more referring to being prepared to bite the bullet and use nuclear power as a compromise. Fossil fuels need to go but just using wind and tide is stupid and not enough for what society needs. Nuclear should be used to get us to the point we can generate everything through renewables. If Costa Rica can do it. We should be able to. It's not just "wind and tide". The solution involves, reducing usage through efficiency, generation through tidal hydro, wave, solar, geothermal, wind energy etc. " Costa Rica is only five million people with little or no industry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"idiots will continue to deny the huge benefits of replacing energy production with clean efficient renewables .... total idiots will still demand that dirty energy such as fracking and nuclear be imposed on the country.
The idiots are the one's posting on swinger forum expecting people to listen to them and immediately change. "Fair point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job." Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idiots are the one's posting on swinger forum expecting people to listen to them and immediately change. "and yet here you are again doing exactly that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idiots are the one's posting on swinger forum expecting people to listen to them and immediately change.
and yet here you are again doing exactly that "And yet here you still replying proving my point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idiots are the one's posting on swinger forum expecting people to listen to them and immediately change.
and yet here you are again doing exactly that
And yet here you still replying proving my point "you remain as always, completely pointless | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well "That's what is confusing me to. I can understand gas as its a international market thing but I was told (on here) that electricity is not bought on the international market. So with a decent amount of renewable being produced, why the price rises so much. There are some suppliers that claim to only use renewable energy but their prices are just as high as others. I'm sure there is a logical explanation to it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well "Wind and solar power is considerably cheaper now but consumers do not benefit due to the pricing system. It is a con, but in exactly the opposite way to what you seem to think. You could look it up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well
That's what is confusing me to. I can understand gas as its a international market thing but I was told (on here) that electricity is not bought on the international market. So with a decent amount of renewable being produced, why the price rises so much. There are some suppliers that claim to only use renewable energy but their prices are just as high as others. I'm sure there is a logical explanation to it"The price is still set by gas. Reasonably clear explanation here: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/why-the-high-cost-of-gas-also-makes-renewable-energy-such-as-wind-and-solar-more-expensive-1242608 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Net Zero cultists don't want any energy aside from wind and solar, which we all know won't be sufficient to meet our needs. Nuclear, fracking, coal, oil, all banned. If the plebs can't heat their homes tough. I've bought a £50k Tesla and a £20k heat pump and my conscience is clear. The fact that impoverishing Britain via the Net Zero Fantasyland won't make a blind bit of difference to the climate given the UK's minimal emissions doesn't matter." So, once again renewable energy produces energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Google:'Our World in Data Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?' Prices of fossil fuels are high because most of the global supply in controlled by a cartel which makes most of the world in their power. That includes us. There is no charge for wind and Sun and tides. There has, actually, been relatively little objection to nuclear and we could have had more decades ago if we had a more competent government. France did. All emissions matter, especially when we caused the problem and the countries suffering the most are the poorest. We are a long way from impoverished. I think that you live in somewhat of a bubble. That's what makes the climate change negotiations so complex. You can look all of this up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Net Zero cultists don't want any energy aside from wind and solar, which we all know won't be sufficient to meet our needs. Nuclear, fracking, coal, oil, all banned. If the plebs can't heat their homes tough. I've bought a £50k Tesla and a £20k heat pump and my conscience is clear. The fact that impoverishing Britain via the Net Zero Fantasyland won't make a blind bit of difference to the climate given the UK's minimal emissions doesn't matter. So, once again renewable energy produces energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Google:'Our World in Data Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?' Prices of fossil fuels are high because most of the global supply in controlled by a cartel which makes most of the world in their power. That includes us. There is no charge for wind and Sun and tides. There has, actually, been relatively little objection to nuclear and we could have had more decades ago if we had a more competent government. France did. All emissions matter, especially when we caused the problem and the countries suffering the most are the poorest. We are a long way from impoverished. I think that you live in somewhat of a bubble. That's what makes the climate change negotiations so complex. You can look all of this up. None of that answers any of my points. Simply regurgitating "you can look all of this up" like some tedious know it all isn't helping your case. " Actually, I addressed all of your points AND you can look it up yourself as you won't believe it. In fact, you clearly didn't even read anything except the last line. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Net Zero cultists don't want any energy aside from wind and solar, which we all know won't be sufficient to meet our needs. Nuclear, fracking, coal, oil, all banned. If the plebs can't heat their homes tough. I've bought a £50k Tesla and a £20k heat pump and my conscience is clear. The fact that impoverishing Britain via the Net Zero Fantasyland won't make a blind bit of difference to the climate given the UK's minimal emissions doesn't matter. So, once again renewable energy produces energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Google:'Our World in Data Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?' Prices of fossil fuels are high because most of the global supply in controlled by a cartel which makes most of the world in their power. That includes us. There is no charge for wind and Sun and tides. There has, actually, been relatively little objection to nuclear and we could have had more decades ago if we had a more competent government. France did. All emissions matter, especially when we caused the problem and the countries suffering the most are the poorest. We are a long way from impoverished. I think that you live in somewhat of a bubble. That's what makes the climate change negotiations so complex. You can look all of this up. None of that answers any of my points. Simply regurgitating "you can look all of this up" like some tedious know it all isn't helping your case. Actually, I addressed all of your points AND you can look it up yourself as you won't believe it. In fact, you clearly didn't even read anything except the last line." The government is incompetent. But its energy policy is no different from that of any other major UK political party. They are all in thrall to the green blob, and the outcomes are evident for all to see quite clearly. Regrettably millions of people are going to have a dismal winter this year, and I suspect tens of thousands more will die than is normal. This is the responsibility of the green loons. But sure, wind and solar is cheaper. The fools should just have had solar panels installed and a subsidised wind turbine erected in their back field. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Net Zero cultists don't want any energy aside from wind and solar, which we all know won't be sufficient to meet our needs. Nuclear, fracking, coal, oil, all banned. If the plebs can't heat their homes tough. I've bought a £50k Tesla and a £20k heat pump and my conscience is clear. The fact that impoverishing Britain via the Net Zero Fantasyland won't make a blind bit of difference to the climate given the UK's minimal emissions doesn't matter. So, once again renewable energy produces energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Google:'Our World in Data Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?' Prices of fossil fuels are high because most of the global supply in controlled by a cartel which makes most of the world in their power. That includes us. There is no charge for wind and Sun and tides. There has, actually, been relatively little objection to nuclear and we could have had more decades ago if we had a more competent government. France did. All emissions matter, especially when we caused the problem and the countries suffering the most are the poorest. We are a long way from impoverished. I think that you live in somewhat of a bubble. That's what makes the climate change negotiations so complex. You can look all of this up. None of that answers any of my points. Simply regurgitating "you can look all of this up" like some tedious know it all isn't helping your case. Actually, I addressed all of your points AND you can look it up yourself as you won't believe it. In fact, you clearly didn't even read anything except the last line. The government is incompetent. But its energy policy is no different from that of any other major UK political party. They are all in thrall to the green blob, and the outcomes are evident for all to see quite clearly. Regrettably millions of people are going to have a dismal winter this year, and I suspect tens of thousands more will die than is normal. This is the responsibility of the green loons. But sure, wind and solar is cheaper. The fools should just have had solar panels installed and a subsidised wind turbine erected in their back field." Perhaps you need to step through your logic. Can you explain the steps? The "green blob" does not pay anything like as well as the fossil fuel companies nor has it had anything like as much political industry until the general population started to demand it. Millions will have a dismal winter because of a war in Ukraine and a dictator cutting off gas supplies. The reason that we are not more screwed is that a significant proportion of our power is not from gas. How are you conceivably blaming "green loons" for that? We would have even less of a problem still if we had moved faster to renewables with grid storage and nuclear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Net Zero cultists don't want any energy aside from wind and solar, which we all know won't be sufficient to meet our needs. Nuclear, fracking, coal, oil, all banned. If the plebs can't heat their homes tough. I've bought a £50k Tesla and a £20k heat pump and my conscience is clear. The fact that impoverishing Britain via the Net Zero Fantasyland won't make a blind bit of difference to the climate given the UK's minimal emissions doesn't matter. So, once again renewable energy produces energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Google:'Our World in Data Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?' Prices of fossil fuels are high because most of the global supply in controlled by a cartel which makes most of the world in their power. That includes us. There is no charge for wind and Sun and tides. There has, actually, been relatively little objection to nuclear and we could have had more decades ago if we had a more competent government. France did. All emissions matter, especially when we caused the problem and the countries suffering the most are the poorest. We are a long way from impoverished. I think that you live in somewhat of a bubble. That's what makes the climate change negotiations so complex. You can look all of this up. None of that answers any of my points. Simply regurgitating "you can look all of this up" like some tedious know it all isn't helping your case. Actually, I addressed all of your points AND you can look it up yourself as you won't believe it. In fact, you clearly didn't even read anything except the last line. The government is incompetent. But its energy policy is no different from that of any other major UK political party. They are all in thrall to the green blob, and the outcomes are evident for all to see quite clearly. Regrettably millions of people are going to have a dismal winter this year, and I suspect tens of thousands more will die than is normal. This is the responsibility of the green loons. But sure, wind and solar is cheaper. The fools should just have had solar panels installed and a subsidised wind turbine erected in their back field. Perhaps you need to step through your logic. Can you explain the steps? The "green blob" does not pay anything like as well as the fossil fuel companies nor has it had anything like as much political industry until the general population started to demand it. Millions will have a dismal winter because of a war in Ukraine and a dictator cutting off gas supplies. The reason that we are not more screwed is that a significant proportion of our power is not from gas. How are you conceivably blaming "green loons" for that? We would have even less of a problem still if we had moved faster to renewables with grid storage and nuclear." Ah yes the war in Ukraine. Nobody has any responsibility for the state the country is in but Putin. And possibly Trump. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well "Once we decouple renewable energy from wholesale fuel markets we’ll see the difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. " Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. " And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Net Zero cultists don't want any energy aside from wind and solar, which we all know won't be sufficient to meet our needs. Nuclear, fracking, coal, oil, all banned. If the plebs can't heat their homes tough. I've bought a £50k Tesla and a £20k heat pump and my conscience is clear. The fact that impoverishing Britain via the Net Zero Fantasyland won't make a blind bit of difference to the climate given the UK's minimal emissions doesn't matter. So, once again renewable energy produces energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Google:'Our World in Data Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?' Prices of fossil fuels are high because most of the global supply in controlled by a cartel which makes most of the world in their power. That includes us. There is no charge for wind and Sun and tides. There has, actually, been relatively little objection to nuclear and we could have had more decades ago if we had a more competent government. France did. All emissions matter, especially when we caused the problem and the countries suffering the most are the poorest. We are a long way from impoverished. I think that you live in somewhat of a bubble. That's what makes the climate change negotiations so complex. You can look all of this up. None of that answers any of my points. Simply regurgitating "you can look all of this up" like some tedious know it all isn't helping your case. Actually, I addressed all of your points AND you can look it up yourself as you won't believe it. In fact, you clearly didn't even read anything except the last line. The government is incompetent. But its energy policy is no different from that of any other major UK political party. They are all in thrall to the green blob, and the outcomes are evident for all to see quite clearly. Regrettably millions of people are going to have a dismal winter this year, and I suspect tens of thousands more will die than is normal. This is the responsibility of the green loons. But sure, wind and solar is cheaper. The fools should just have had solar panels installed and a subsidised wind turbine erected in their back field. Perhaps you need to step through your logic. Can you explain the steps? The "green blob" does not pay anything like as well as the fossil fuel companies nor has it had anything like as much political industry until the general population started to demand it. Millions will have a dismal winter because of a war in Ukraine and a dictator cutting off gas supplies. The reason that we are not more screwed is that a significant proportion of our power is not from gas. How are you conceivably blaming "green loons" for that? We would have even less of a problem still if we had moved faster to renewables with grid storage and nuclear. Ah yes the war in Ukraine. Nobody has any responsibility for the state the country is in but Putin. And possibly Trump. " It really isn't anything to do with the "green blob" though, is it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? " Over the last few years it would seem to be significantly better than fossil fuel ones. That's why oil companies started reinvesting and green-washing. Why don't you want to look this stuff up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? Over the last few years it would seem to be significantly better than fossil fuel ones. That's why oil companies started reinvesting and green-washing. Why don't you want to look this stuff up?" You should bet your house on the "green future". I'm sure you'll make a killing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? Over the last few years it would seem to be significantly better than fossil fuel ones. That's why oil companies started reinvesting and green-washing. Why don't you want to look this stuff up? You should bet your house on the "green future". I'm sure you'll make a killing." So, after making multiple claims which have turned out to be untrue with minimum research, this is where you end up? Well done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . " Assuming this isn't satire. This is extremely alarming that some people have view like this that come directly from fossil fuel propaganda. "The green agenda" should be at the very top of the governments priorities, but alas they work for the fossil fuels corporations and are unconcerned about climate change, or the wellbeing of British people. This government falls woefully short on environmental issues. And that people think this government is too green, is a testament to the power of misinformation and propaganda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe if the prices are set by the rest of the world the uk should tell them all to do one and set our own domestic prices for wind and solar "We could, but have chosen not to. Perhaps it's because it makes it less obvious what the benefit of renewable energy is so allows fossil fuel companies to continue to appear indispensable? That is pure conspiracy theory but... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . " Renewable energy is cheaper to produce than that from fossil fuels. It creates less pollution. It generates a tiny fraction of CO2. The consequences of climate change are costing significantly more than what the cost of infrastructure investment will be. Farmers cannot make money growing food. It's rotting in the fields and costs too much to harvest in large part due to fossil fuel prices. Fracking, other than using and polluting water that is rapidly becoming a scarce resource, will not produce a meaningful amount of gas to ever change prices and will take many years to ramp up anyway. Spending the same amount on renewables, grid infrastructure and storage will provide a long term solution that makes us progressively more independent of global prices and geopolitics. We'll be far more in control unless someone turns off the sun, wind and waves and rides and we never build a nuclear reactor. So nobody felt this "proven" bag of shopping? They were all happy with it happening? Will they still be happy over time when that moves foundations and cracks pipes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe if the prices are set by the rest of the world the uk should tell them all to do one and set our own domestic prices for wind and solar
We could, but have chosen not to.
Perhaps it's because it makes it less obvious what the benefit of renewable energy is so allows fossil fuel companies to continue to appear indispensable?
That is pure conspiracy theory but..."Maybe the fossil fuels are still indispensable at this time but would not be in a few years time. Problem is the fixation with trying to push the net zero faster than it’s possible right now. The target is 2050 that’s 25 + years away still time to ramp up wind solar nuclear ect while still using gas/oil in the meantime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . " I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe if the prices are set by the rest of the world the uk should tell them all to do one and set our own domestic prices for wind and solar
We could, but have chosen not to.
Perhaps it's because it makes it less obvious what the benefit of renewable energy is so allows fossil fuel companies to continue to appear indispensable?
That is pure conspiracy theory but...
Maybe the fossil fuels are still indispensable at this time but would not be in a few years time.
Problem is the fixation with trying to push the net zero faster than it’s possible right now.
The target is 2050 that’s 25 + years away still time to ramp up wind solar nuclear ect while still using gas/oil in the meantime.
"It is possible. We subsidised oil and gas to the tune of £13bn since 2015. An industry making huge profits. Where would we be if that money was invested in energy transition instead? The date has pushed investment and deployment. Without that legislation there would have been continued delay and prevarication. It's forced the change which clearly was not happening before with any sense of urgency whatsoever. Net zero also does not mean that we cannot stop using fossil fuels. It puts a price on the damage caused by them in a requirement to mitigate with carbon sequestration which can be technological or tree planting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods " This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind." Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods " The UK is woefully behind where we should be in transitioning away from fossil fuels. If we stopped propping up the oil and gas industry and transitioned to renewables when we should have, we'd have cheap clean electricity which would be largely unaffected by the likes of the war in Ukraine. Further delaying the transition will only make everything worse, except of course profits for multi national oil companies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing "Completely avoidable if we weren't so far behind where we should be moving away from reliance on fossil fuels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing "As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events. We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost. Zero. The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable."An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right? And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening."Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency. The solution is to use diverse methods of generation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation."Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening."Neither a wind turbine or an electric car cost nothing to produce, nor are they without negative impact. Who said that they did? Why say something so absurd? Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up. There is also tidal and wave energy which has received less funding. Nuclear power has existed for a long time. We haven't managed to organise ourselves to grow it. France has. Japan and Germany are switching on again. Is there more cost in damage to the Earth compared to oil? Wars, corruption, spillages, pollution? Oil is crap in all of the respects that you raise and has had more than century of optimisation. Renewable technologies are just growing and are already far cheaper for the consumer and are focused on resolving those issues already. They have to meet those criteria for investment funding.Child labour is no longer used and was only in a very specific location. Highly publicised and correctly so, but never representative. You seem to be using oil company publicity arguments, so they are doing their job well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess."Well yes. We can reduce usage. We have pretty painlessly for decades. Everything from light bulbs to TVs to fridges are substantially more efficient than even five years ago let alone ten or twenty. Doesn't feel like a 1700s life to me. Why would you want to use and pay for more energy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess."You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you."You've certainly learnt all the buzzwords from your Little Green Book, "diversity", "progress through sustainability", no doubt you will still be chanting the mantras like some deluded follower of the Khmer Rouge while we are all starving around you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you."So can you list 5 things every adult human should be doing right now to combat the global warming issue? I'm doing what I can but looking at this forum, us mere mortals should be doing more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you.
You've certainly learnt all the buzzwords from your Little Green Book, "diversity", "progress through sustainability", no doubt you will still be chanting the mantras like some deluded follower of the Khmer Rouge while we are all starving around you."Except I haven't used any of those words. Only you have. You don't, actually have anything to back up what you are saying though, yet you keep repeating it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you.
You've certainly learnt all the buzzwords from your Little Green Book, "diversity", "progress through sustainability", no doubt you will still be chanting the mantras like some deluded follower of the Khmer Rouge while we are all starving around you."Just so we're clear, you're angry and confused at me because I understand the subject matter? And then some weird confusion implying that I am a fan of the khmer rouge? Not sure how you leapt to this bizarre conclusion. It's pretty weird. In anycase, maybe you would benefit from learning about climate change and renewable energy generation. That would help with some of your confusion and misplaces anger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you.
So can you list 5 things every adult human should be doing right now to combat the global warming issue?
I'm doing what I can but looking at this forum, us mere mortals should be doing more. "The issue is climate change, not "global warming" You could not "should" because "should" implies being told what to do. Reduce your energy use at home (I am sure you don't need suggestions how) Shop and spend your money ethically Walk, cycle use public transport more Eat more vegetables reduce single use plastic in your household switch your energy supplier to one that uses renewables travel less for work IE more zoom meetings I have no idea your circumstances, so no idea what applies. Also no idea why you're asking randomers on a swingers forum this stuff, google would have sorted you out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We subsidised oil and gas to the tune of £13bn since 2015. An industry making huge profits." The way I'm reading your statement is 'since 2015 the UK has given oil and gas companies £13bn of subsidies that other companies don't get'. Have I misunderstood what you are saying? Would you like to tell us what these subsidies are? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up." I'd be interested to hear what methods of grid storage you consider feasible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We subsidised oil and gas to the tune of £13bn since 2015. An industry making huge profits. The way I'm reading your statement is 'since 2015 the UK has given oil and gas companies £13bn of subsidies that other companies don't get'. Have I misunderstood what you are saying? Would you like to tell us what these subsidies are?" Profitable companies who are conducting business as usual don't usually require subsidies. It's actually £13.6 bn Sky and The Independent and even the China Daily can help you. As a pretend lawyer you can argue over the fact that the UK Government dispute the definition of "subsidy", but I can't be bothered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up. I'd be interested to hear what methods of grid storage you consider feasible." Pumped hydro Hydrogen (alternative fuel conversion) Air liquefaction Compressed air Flow batteries CO2 batteries (also compressed gas) Thermal mass heating Gravity batteries | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you.
So can you list 5 things every adult human should be doing right now to combat the global warming issue?
I'm doing what I can but looking at this forum, us mere mortals should be doing more.
The issue is climate change, not "global warming"
You could not "should" because "should" implies being told what to do.
Reduce your energy use at home (I am sure you don't need suggestions how)
Shop and spend your money ethically
Walk, cycle use public transport more
Eat more vegetables
reduce single use plastic in your household
switch your energy supplier to one that uses renewables
travel less for work IE more zoom meetings
I have no idea your circumstances, so no idea what applies. Also no idea why you're asking randomers on a swingers forum this stuff, google would have sorted you out."I'm asking you as you seem to the person in the know as per your previous comments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up. I'd be interested to hear what methods of grid storage you consider feasible. Pumped hydro Hydrogen (alternative fuel conversion) Air liquefaction Compressed air Flow batteries CO2 batteries (also compressed gas) Thermal mass heating Gravity batteries" Actually agree. Hydrogen is readily available. The storage and infrastructure for public consumption isn't ready yet. Compressed air, Peugeot had a concept vehicle that ran on compressed air. All brilliant and fantastic methods of energy production, but not readily available to general masses. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well
That's what is confusing me to. I can understand gas as its a international market thing but I was told (on here) that electricity is not bought on the international market. So with a decent amount of renewable being produced, why the price rises so much. There are some suppliers that claim to only use renewable energy but their prices are just as high as others. I'm sure there is a logical explanation to it
The price is still set by gas.
Reasonably clear explanation here: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/why-the-high-cost-of-gas-also-makes-renewable-energy-such-as-wind-and-solar-more-expensive-1242608"Thank you. Does seem a bizarre situation how it's priced and worrying that we will not see the benefits of renewables as things stand. I guess this is what the chap from Belgium was talking about when he said the link needs to be broken | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up. I'd be interested to hear what methods of grid storage you consider feasible. Pumped hydro Hydrogen (alternative fuel conversion) Air liquefaction Compressed air Flow batteries CO2 batteries (also compressed gas) Thermal mass heating Gravity batteries Actually agree. Hydrogen is readily available. The storage and infrastructure for public consumption isn't ready yet. Compressed air, Peugeot had a concept vehicle that ran on compressed air. All brilliant and fantastic methods of energy production, but not readily available to general masses. " Neither were electric cars or planes or normal cars. Until they were. You have to start. Public access not needed for Hydrogen. More useful in decarbonising industries like steel or as a fuel for trains or HGVs with depot fueling. The compressed gasses just convert back to electricity when needed. Like hydroelectric now. The Peugeot you mentioned probably not practical,but an interesting demonstration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. So when is solar and wind electricity going to be cheaper to the consumer? That’s a con as well
That's what is confusing me to. I can understand gas as its a international market thing but I was told (on here) that electricity is not bought on the international market. So with a decent amount of renewable being produced, why the price rises so much. There are some suppliers that claim to only use renewable energy but their prices are just as high as others. I'm sure there is a logical explanation to it
The price is still set by gas.
Reasonably clear explanation here: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/why-the-high-cost-of-gas-also-makes-renewable-energy-such-as-wind-and-solar-more-expensive-1242608
Thank you. Does seem a bizarre situation how it's priced and worrying that we will not see the benefits of renewables as things stand. I guess this is what the chap from Belgium was talking about when he said the link needs to be broken"That's why you need good grid storage, nuclear or fusion which is always 20 years away at which point we have no more problems | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up." "I'd be interested to hear what methods of grid storage you consider feasible." "Pumped hydro Hydrogen (alternative fuel conversion) Air liquefaction Compressed air Flow batteries CO2 batteries (also compressed gas) Thermal mass heating Gravity batteries" Pumped hydro is great, as the Dinorwig power station shows, but it does rely on having appropriately shaped mountains. Sadly, they are in short supply. The various compressed gas schemes and thermal heating just won't work at scale. Flow batteries work, but are very inefficient. Gravity systems can't really be scaled up to work at grid level (of course, pumped hydro is just a gravity system, but see the above problem). The only one in that list that shows promise is hydrogen. It's a bugger to store, but that problem has solutions, and they have been shown to work at scale. Unfortunately, there aren't any plants in existence at the moment. The only proven system for grid scale storage in the UK at the moment is batteries. Hydrogen is the front runner for being proven next, but at the moment it's just theoretical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... you can argue over the fact that the UK Government dispute the definition of "subsidy", but I can't be bothered." So you can be bothered to make the assertion that the UK subsidies the fossil fuel industry (twice), but you can't be bothered to back up your assertion with facts. Got it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Grid storage is feasible in many ways. Needs some scale up. I'd be interested to hear what methods of grid storage you consider feasible. Pumped hydro Hydrogen (alternative fuel conversion) Air liquefaction Compressed air Flow batteries CO2 batteries (also compressed gas) Thermal mass heating Gravity batteries Pumped hydro is great, as the Dinorwig power station shows, but it does rely on having appropriately shaped mountains. Sadly, they are in short supply. The various compressed gas schemes and thermal heating just won't work at scale. Flow batteries work, but are very inefficient. Gravity systems can't really be scaled up to work at grid level (of course, pumped hydro is just a gravity system, but see the above problem). The only one in that list that shows promise is hydrogen. It's a bugger to store, but that problem has solutions, and they have been shown to work at scale. Unfortunately, there aren't any plants in existence at the moment. The only proven system for grid scale storage in the UK at the moment is batteries. Hydrogen is the front runner for being proven next, but at the moment it's just theoretical. " Your engineering knowledge is as deep as your legal knowledge, but that won't stop you, I guess. Thanks for your input | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... you can argue over the fact that the UK Government dispute the definition of "subsidy", but I can't be bothered. So you can be bothered to make the assertion that the UK subsidies the fossil fuel industry (twice), but you can't be bothered to back up your assertion with facts. Got it." I've related the key piece of information that I needed. If you need more, I've told you where to get the information. Hint: type "13.6 billion oil subsidy" into Google and click on the links for The Independent, Sky News or China Daily. Anyone else could do the same. You could try, once again, to claim that I haven't "backed up" my assertion, but that would only demonstrate that you cannot use a search engine. You can share your findings or continue to bleat. No difference to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've related the key piece of information that I needed. If you need more, I've told you where to get the information." The idea behind asking you to back up your assertion was to see if you actually understood it. The £13.6bn figure that you quote is indeed tax breaks and incentives that the fossil fuel industry has received. However it's tax breaks and incentives that every company in the UK is entitled to. It's not a subsidy aimed at the fossil fuel industry. £3.7bn of that headline figure is in tax relief for scrapping equipment, i.e. not charging them tax when they make a loss. Fossil fuel companies are not helping the planet, and they are actively trying to stop the move to 'renewable' energy sources. There's already enough reason to have a go at them about without making stuff up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Green agenda has to be halted , we don't have the infrastructure in place presently, we need as many farmers to be farming their land to produce crops and vegetables to feed the nation. We need to frack too that energy is right under our feet , its been proven that the tremors in Lancashire were no greater than a bag of shopping hitting the floor from 6ft up . I don’t think the green agenda should be halted but it does need to be slowed down so that the rest of the country can catch up. It seems the UK is hell bent on trying to beat everyone else to the target and it’s breaking peoples livelihoods This drives new technologies and creates new industries. You need to be ahead of the next big thing,not trailing behind. Meanwhile the small businesses who employ up to 16 million people are in danger of folding because energy prices are rocketing
As has been said, an earlier transition would have made us less dependent on geopolitical events.
We could have been producing more energy with zero fuel cost.
Zero.
The more energy produced in this way globally the less any country is beholden to those who are fuel rich (due to luck). That also means that input costs for our production are more stable.
An earlier transition to what exactly? Windmills and solar? You appreciate they don't work all the time right?
And windmills cost zero to produce and at no environmental impact? How much does a Tesla cost in damage to the earth and child labour? Just because you can't see it in North London doesn't mean it's not happening.
Generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal hydro, biogas, wave, etc. Plus reducing usage through efficiency.
The solution is to use diverse methods of generation.
Or alternatively we could just reduce usage by all living like it's the 1700's. Progress I guess.
You seem to be confusing progress through sustainability with returning to the 1700's not sure where you can go from here. But still, fair play to you.
So can you list 5 things every adult human should be doing right now to combat the global warming issue?
I'm doing what I can but looking at this forum, us mere mortals should be doing more.
The issue is climate change, not "global warming"
You could not "should" because "should" implies being told what to do.
Reduce your energy use at home (I am sure you don't need suggestions how)
Shop and spend your money ethically
Walk, cycle use public transport more
Eat more vegetables
reduce single use plastic in your household
switch your energy supplier to one that uses renewables
travel less for work IE more zoom meetings
I have no idea your circumstances, so no idea what applies. Also no idea why you're asking randomers on a swingers forum this stuff, google would have sorted you out.
I'm asking you as you seem to the person in the know as per your previous comments.
"Anyone can be in the know, it's all public information. No secrets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've related the key piece of information that I needed. If you need more, I've told you where to get the information. The idea behind asking you to back up your assertion was to see if you actually understood it. The £13.6bn figure that you quote is indeed tax breaks and incentives that the fossil fuel industry has received. However it's tax breaks and incentives that every company in the UK is entitled to. It's not a subsidy aimed at the fossil fuel industry. £3.7bn of that headline figure is in tax relief for scrapping equipment, i.e. not charging them tax when they make a loss. Fossil fuel companies are not helping the planet, and they are actively trying to stop the move to 'renewable' energy sources. There's already enough reason to have a go at them about without making stuff up." I understand very well that £13.6bn was paid to oil companies. That was the only point made. If you want to make another point then make it without playing games. Oil companies are a long way from "making a loss" on decommissioning. They, in fact, agreed to decommissioning and responsibility for sealed wells in perpetuity as part of their licensing. The tax relief was introduced specifically for the oil industry. The exploration tax relief is also completely specific to the oil and gas industry and is to be increased even as a windfall tax is applied. Again, specifically for the oil and gas industry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? " It’s not about speed, it’s about longevity | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? It’s not about speed, it’s about longevity "The green energy funds have risen with the whole sector. It's technology stocks like Facebook and Tencent that have fallen plus the mental Tesla bubble. Different things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? It’s not about speed, it’s about longevity
The green energy funds have risen with the whole sector.
It's technology stocks like Facebook and Tencent that have fallen plus the mental Tesla bubble.
Different things."As you like to "look things up", here you go: https://hbr.org/2022/03/an-inconvenient-truth-about-esg-investing And how are oil stocks doing this year? Presumably in free fall given that it's end of days for the oil companies. Oh hang on.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"LSE (London School of Economics) Beware misinformation and propaganda about the cost of energy crisis "British consumers are facing a cost of energy crisis, and some ideological extremists are trying to exploit the hardship and misery with misinformation and propaganda about climate policies. Bob Ward dispels the four most common myths being propagated by opponents of net zero." "Myth 1: Renewables are forcing up energy bills This is not true. Ofgem is unequivocal? about the cause of the rise in dual fuel bills: the wholesale market price of natural gas has increased at least fourfold in the past 12 months. Its analysis shows that the average annual bill has risen £693 to £1,971, driven mainly by a surge of 104 per cent in wholesale costs from £528 to £1,077...In fact, renewables that are operating under Contracts for Difference? have been generating electricity below the market rate since September 2021" "Myth 2: Fracking in the UK would have lowered energy bills This is false, too. Energy bills have risen because of steep increases in the market price of natural gas for European countries, as a result of shortfalls in supply which began in winter 2021–22...Some opponents of climate policies have suggested that shale gas from fracking in the UK could have reduced current energy bills...However, even under the most optimistic projections?[1] from United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), the group representing the onshore oil and gas industry and the wider supply chain, even if the moratorium were not in place, in year three UK annual production of shale gas would be ... be replacing less than 2 per cent of annual LNG imports, and making no real impact on the European market price." "Myth 3: More renewables means we have to use more natural gas, including imports from Russia This is an inaccurate claim that is easily rebutted. Although renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, and thus need to be backed up by other electricity sources such as gas-fired power stations, this does not negate the zero-carbon power that is generated. The latest statistics? published by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show that in the last quarter of 2021, renewables generated 35.8 terawatt-hours of electricity, up 4.0 per cent compared with the same period in 2020, while natural gas generated 30.4 terawatt-hours, down 4.4 per cent compared with 12 months before. Wind and solar generated almost 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2021." "Myth 4: The UK cannot afford to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050 The evidence shows this is untrue. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility has examined in detail the size of the investments required for the UK to reach the statutory target of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050...By 2050, the net annual savings would be £19 billion...When combined with savings from more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles, the net cost to the state is £344 billion in real terms. But spread across three decades, this represents an average of just 0.4 per cent of GDP in additional public spending each year...The costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero. Our stylised unmitigated warming scenario shows debt spiralling up to around 290 per cent of GDP thanks to the cost of adapting to an ever hotter climate and of more frequent and more costly economic shocks (as the spillovers from increased conflict and mass migration are added to the cost of more extreme weather events)." Of course, I realise that once people make up their minds, facts are irrelevant. Only belief and emotion matters In not being able to find independent data for unsupported views we step into the realms of conspiracy. You couldn't be wrong therefore it must be a "conspiracy" hiding the "real" information, right? I will apologise in advance I never bothered to read your cut and paste. Why are you getting upset with me. I only work in that particular sector. I'm pro fracking as that keeps me in a job. So a vested interest in Fracking, there are a lot of people in the oil and gas industry who are switching to the renewables industry. Also here’s the kicker, gas prices are mandated by markets, so even if you produce gas from fracking it’s not going to lower prices locally because the global gas market dictates price, therefore profits to the gas companies are going to be the same. It’s an utter con job. Who are these people in the Oil & Gas industry switching? As you have seen profits are currently the best they have ever been. My vested interest in Oil & Gas has already produced significant gains in the shares I have. I would see better returns investing 20 grand in the O&G market now, than I would spending the same money on a solar panel set up for my house. Oops may have let the cat out of the bag, the offshore wind farms up in Scotland have been offering greater incentives for O&G workers to jump over. It’s becoming a death from a 1000 cuts for the fossil fuel industry. Invest ahead, it’s your money, use it in whatever way you want. You bet on the future you want, I’ll bet on the future I want. And how are all those Green funds doing in the markets? It’s not about speed, it’s about longevity
The green energy funds have risen with the whole sector.
It's technology stocks like Facebook and Tencent that have fallen plus the mental Tesla bubble.
Different things.
As you like to "look things up", here you go: https://hbr.org/2022/03/an-inconvenient-truth-about-esg-investing
And how are oil stocks doing this year? Presumably in free fall given that it's end of days for the oil companies. Oh hang on...."There's a lot of greenwashing with ESGs (Environmental and Social Governance). It's a new market which is about to be more tightly regulated. You also seem to have got confused. Renewable energy is not the same as ESG. ESG is a very broad sector. There's an overlap, but they are different. That's why you do some research before investing. Oil and gas funds have plummeted over several years and it has taken a war and global shortage to improve their performance. You should look that up. Interesting that you keep shifting your arguments as you struggle to find corroborating data. For instance, is renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuel energy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I understand very well that £13.6bn was paid to oil companies. That was the only point made." To be clear, your original post said "We subsidised oil and gas to the tune of £13bn since 2015. An industry making huge profits. Where would we be if that money was invested in energy transition instead?". So it looks like your point was that fossil fuels get subsidies that 'renewables' don't. That was inaccurate. "The tax relief was introduced specifically for the oil industry." That's not true. The Annual Investment Allowance is available to all UK companies. https://www.gov.uk/capital-allowances/annual-investment-allowance "The exploration tax relief is also completely specific to the oil and gas industry and is to be increased even as a windfall tax is applied. Again, specifically for the oil and gas industry." That's also not true. The Research and Development Allowance also is available to all UK companies. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-allowances-manual/ca60000 "Oil companies are a long way from "making a loss" on decommissioning. They, in fact, agreed to decommissioning and responsibility for sealed wells in perpetuity as part of their licensing." From an accounting point of view (which is how taxes are calculated), it's a loss. They previously had an asset on their books which was worth something. After decommissioning, that asset is worthless, so the value that it previously had has disappeared. That is an accounting sheet loss, which must be offset to taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I understand very well that £13.6bn was paid to oil companies. That was the only point made. To be clear, your original post said "We subsidised oil and gas to the tune of £13bn since 2015. An industry making huge profits. Where would we be if that money was invested in energy transition instead?". So it looks like your point was that fossil fuels get subsidies that 'renewables' don't. That was inaccurate. The tax relief was introduced specifically for the oil industry. That's not true. The Annual Investment Allowance is available to all UK companies. https://www.gov.uk/capital-allowances/annual-investment-allowance The exploration tax relief is also completely specific to the oil and gas industry and is to be increased even as a windfall tax is applied. Again, specifically for the oil and gas industry. That's also not true. The Research and Development Allowance also is available to all UK companies. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-allowances-manual/ca60000 Oil companies are a long way from "making a loss" on decommissioning. They, in fact, agreed to decommissioning and responsibility for sealed wells in perpetuity as part of their licensing. From an accounting point of view (which is how taxes are calculated), it's a loss. They previously had an asset on their books which was worth something. After decommissioning, that asset is worthless, so the value that it previously had has disappeared. That is an accounting sheet loss, which must be offset to taxes." No. My point was that oil subsidies would have done more good, as demonstrated today, if they had been invested in increased renewable energy provision. Renewable energy subsidies have, in fact, been cut. If in your "research" you have not discovered that the UK oil and gas industry has a completely unique tax structure then you haven't been researching very successfully. All oil, gas and coal is owned by the state and access is licensed by the state. You trying to draw parallels with any other industry makes no sense. Fortunately you are also an accounting expert too although still not quite able to acknowledge that the oil and gas industry is unique in the liabilities that it accepts when licenced to exploit a given site. All that "has" to be done is what the government says "has" to be done. The tax regime was, in fact, changed, around decommissioning and was proposed to be changed around prospecting. Purely for the oil and gas industry and nobody else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I understand very well that £13.6bn was paid to oil companies. That was the only point made. ... No. My point was that oil subsidies would have done more good, as demonstrated today, if they had been invested in increased renewable energy provision." But as I've demonstrated, the fossil fuel industry doesn't get any subsidies. If you're arguing that fossil fuel companies shouldn't be allowed to use the same tax breaks as other companies, that's a different thing. "Renewable energy subsidies have, in fact, been cut." That's true. 'Renewables' are now past the mass-production point. They are so obviously a good idea that people are buying and installing them without the need for government to subsidise them . There will be even more of a cut in subsidy if Liz Truss gets put in charge. "If in your "research" you have not discovered that the UK oil and gas industry has a completely unique tax structure then you haven't been researching very successfully." I've never said otherwise. As an example, the fossil fuel industry pays twice as much Corporation Tax as other companies do (technically they pay 30% Corporation Tax instead of the normal 20%, but then they have to pay a 10% "Additional Surcharge"). Also, their profits are ring-fenced, which means that they can't use losses in one division to offset profits in another, which most companies can. All I've said is that fossil fuels don't get subsidies, or any other form of benefit that is special to them. Nor should they, as the product they extract is owned by the state. "You trying to draw parallels with any other industry makes no sense." I haven't drawn parallels with any other industry. "Fortunately you are also an accounting expert too although still not quite able to acknowledge that the oil and gas industry is unique in the liabilities that it accepts when licenced to exploit a given site." I'm not an expert in accounting, I barely know the basics. Even that is enough to know that an oil company has to register a loss when they close down an oil field. I'm happy to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industries have to accept liabilities when they take on a new licence. Just the same as waste disposal, or mining, or quarrying, or any other industry that exploits natural resources. "The tax regime was, in fact, changed, around decommissioning and was proposed to be changed around prospecting. Purely for the oil and gas industry and nobody else." Previously you said that "The tax relief was introduced specifically for the oil industry", and I posted the details of the tax relief and proved that you were wrong. Would you like to give details of what it was that you think was changed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I understand very well that £13.6bn was paid to oil companies. That was the only point made. ... No. My point was that oil subsidies would have done more good, as demonstrated today, if they had been invested in increased renewable energy provision. But as I've demonstrated, the fossil fuel industry doesn't get any subsidies. If you're arguing that fossil fuel companies shouldn't be allowed to use the same tax breaks as other companies, that's a different thing. Renewable energy subsidies have, in fact, been cut. That's true. 'Renewables' are now past the mass-production point. They are so obviously a good idea that people are buying and installing them without the need for government to subsidise them . There will be even more of a cut in subsidy if Liz Truss gets put in charge. If in your "research" you have not discovered that the UK oil and gas industry has a completely unique tax structure then you haven't been researching very successfully. I've never said otherwise. As an example, the fossil fuel industry pays twice as much Corporation Tax as other companies do (technically they pay 30% Corporation Tax instead of the normal 20%, but then they have to pay a 10% "Additional Surcharge"). Also, their profits are ring-fenced, which means that they can't use losses in one division to offset profits in another, which most companies can. All I've said is that fossil fuels don't get subsidies, or any other form of benefit that is special to them. Nor should they, as the product they extract is owned by the state. You trying to draw parallels with any other industry makes no sense. I haven't drawn parallels with any other industry. Fortunately you are also an accounting expert too although still not quite able to acknowledge that the oil and gas industry is unique in the liabilities that it accepts when licenced to exploit a given site. I'm not an expert in accounting, I barely know the basics. Even that is enough to know that an oil company has to register a loss when they close down an oil field. I'm happy to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industries have to accept liabilities when they take on a new licence. Just the same as waste disposal, or mining, or quarrying, or any other industry that exploits natural resources. The tax regime was, in fact, changed, around decommissioning and was proposed to be changed around prospecting. Purely for the oil and gas industry and nobody else. Previously you said that "The tax relief was introduced specifically for the oil industry", and I posted the details of the tax relief and proved that you were wrong. Would you like to give details of what it was that you think was changed?" No, you really haven't "demonstrated" anything. The government has arbitrarily created its own tax regime for the fossil fuel industry. If you cannot grasp that then there is no discussion. I didn't say that there should be any subsidy for the renewables industry, just that there should not be an ongoing subsidy to the very profitable fossil fuel industry. I said that this money would be better used investing in renewable energy. The Government could do that in all manner of direct and indirect ways. As you have been so thorough in your research you'll be able to read these words from your link and understand that they specifically refer to oil and gas in special terms: "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas exploration and appraisal. Oil and gas exploration and appraisal means activities carried out for the purpose of: searching for petroleum anywhere in an area, or ascertaining: the extent or characteristics of any petroleum bearing area, or what the reserves of petroleum of any such area are, so that it may be determined whether the petroleum is suitable for commercial exploitation." No other industry searches for oil and gas. The rebate is purely for oil and gas. Is this comprehensible? It is literally written down. Closing an oil field is tough sh*t for an oil company. If the Government says that it qualifies for tax relief it does. If it says that it does not it does not. They choose to write whatever rules they choose to and provide whatever clarifications that they choose to. When was there a clarification issued on decommissioning for oil and gas? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What rubbish. It’s neigh impossible to get permission for large scale solar. It will only ever occupy a minuscule part of uk land. " There are a lot of rooftops it could go on. Should we be using farmland for solar? Probably not. However, we have a free market and it appears to be a better use of the asset for farmers than growing crops. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government has arbitrarily created its own tax regime for the fossil fuel industry." I agree. I detailed some of the differences in my previous post. But that arbitrary tax regime doesn't include any subsidies. It used to, but it hasn't for some time now. "I didn't say that there should be any subsidy for the renewables industry, just that there should not be an ongoing subsidy to the very profitable fossil fuel industry." I've never said that you have called for subsidy for the renewables industry. We both agree that there should not be subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The only area of disagreement is that you think fossil fuel subsidies exist, which they don't. "I said that this money would be better used investing in renewable energy. The Government could do that in all manner of direct and indirect ways." That does sound like you saying that there should be a subsidy for the renewables industry. Are you sure you're not calling for renewables subsidies? "As you have been so thorough in your research you'll be able to read these words from your link and understand that they specifically refer to oil and gas in special terms: "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas exploration and appraisal. ..." Yes, those words come from the Capital Allowances Manual. They clarify that oil and gas exploration qualifies as research and development, as it always has for decades. The clarification comes because the old law used to define it as "scientific research", which confused a lot of people. It was re-worded to make it clearer. "No other industry searches for oil and gas. The rebate is purely for oil and gas. Is this comprehensible? It is literally written down." The bit you seem to have missed is the word "also" in the sentence "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas ...". This word shows that the R&D section of the CAM applies to all industry. It's not a special oil and gas subsidy, just a normal tax measure that oil and gas companies are allowed to use. "Closing an oil field is tough sh*t for an oil company. If the Government says that it qualifies for tax relief it does. If it says that it does not it does not. They choose to write whatever rules they choose to and provide whatever clarifications that they choose to." I'm not sure what point you're making here. Basically I agree, government sets the rules, and companies have to follow them. But the government doesn't have any rules that are specifically advantageous to oil and gas companies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government has arbitrarily created its own tax regime for the fossil fuel industry. I agree. I detailed some of the differences in my previous post. But that arbitrary tax regime doesn't include any subsidies. It used to, but it hasn't for some time now. I didn't say that there should be any subsidy for the renewables industry, just that there should not be an ongoing subsidy to the very profitable fossil fuel industry. I've never said that you have called for subsidy for the renewables industry. We both agree that there should not be subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The only area of disagreement is that you think fossil fuel subsidies exist, which they don't. I said that this money would be better used investing in renewable energy. The Government could do that in all manner of direct and indirect ways. That does sound like you saying that there should be a subsidy for the renewables industry. Are you sure you're not calling for renewables subsidies? As you have been so thorough in your research you'll be able to read these words from your link and understand that they specifically refer to oil and gas in special terms: "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas exploration and appraisal. ... Yes, those words come from the Capital Allowances Manual. They clarify that oil and gas exploration qualifies as research and development, as it always has for decades. The clarification comes because the old law used to define it as "scientific research", which confused a lot of people. It was re-worded to make it clearer. No other industry searches for oil and gas. The rebate is purely for oil and gas. Is this comprehensible? It is literally written down. The bit you seem to have missed is the word "also" in the sentence "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas ...". This word shows that the R&D section of the CAM applies to all industry. It's not a special oil and gas subsidy, just a normal tax measure that oil and gas companies are allowed to use. Closing an oil field is tough sh*t for an oil company. If the Government says that it qualifies for tax relief it does. If it says that it does not it does not. They choose to write whatever rules they choose to and provide whatever clarifications that they choose to. I'm not sure what point you're making here. Basically I agree, government sets the rules, and companies have to follow them. But the government doesn't have any rules that are specifically advantageous to oil and gas companies." Yes, you really aren't sure but you keep on throwing yourself at the same wall. The oil industry has specific tax rules written specifically for it. They could be whatever the Government chooses for them to be. The Government has changed many of them over time to make them more beneficial but could have interpreted them more strictly. So, in conclusion Huge tax breaks/subsidies have been given to oil and gas companies. That huge amount of money would have done more good for the energy situation in the country today if it had been focused on renewables. You have "proved" and "demonstrated" nothing of any use, just wasted energy disagreeing for its own sake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government has arbitrarily created its own tax regime for the fossil fuel industry. I agree. I detailed some of the differences in my previous post. But that arbitrary tax regime doesn't include any subsidies. It used to, but it hasn't for some time now. I didn't say that there should be any subsidy for the renewables industry, just that there should not be an ongoing subsidy to the very profitable fossil fuel industry. I've never said that you have called for subsidy for the renewables industry. We both agree that there should not be subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The only area of disagreement is that you think fossil fuel subsidies exist, which they don't. I said that this money would be better used investing in renewable energy. The Government could do that in all manner of direct and indirect ways. That does sound like you saying that there should be a subsidy for the renewables industry. Are you sure you're not calling for renewables subsidies? As you have been so thorough in your research you'll be able to read these words from your link and understand that they specifically refer to oil and gas in special terms: "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas exploration and appraisal. ... Yes, those words come from the Capital Allowances Manual. They clarify that oil and gas exploration qualifies as research and development, as it always has for decades. The clarification comes because the old law used to define it as "scientific research", which confused a lot of people. It was re-worded to make it clearer. No other industry searches for oil and gas. The rebate is purely for oil and gas. Is this comprehensible? It is literally written down. The bit you seem to have missed is the word "also" in the sentence "For CA purposes research and development also includes oil and gas ...". This word shows that the R&D section of the CAM applies to all industry. It's not a special oil and gas subsidy, just a normal tax measure that oil and gas companies are allowed to use. Closing an oil field is tough sh*t for an oil company. If the Government says that it qualifies for tax relief it does. If it says that it does not it does not. They choose to write whatever rules they choose to and provide whatever clarifications that they choose to. I'm not sure what point you're making here. Basically I agree, government sets the rules, and companies have to follow them. But the government doesn't have any rules that are specifically advantageous to oil and gas companies. Yes, you really aren't sure but you keep on throwing yourself at the same wall. The oil industry has specific tax rules written specifically for it. They could be whatever the Government chooses for them to be. The Government has changed many of them over time to make them more beneficial but could have interpreted them more strictly. So, in conclusion Huge tax breaks/subsidies have been given to oil and gas companies. That huge amount of money would have done more good for the energy situation in the country today if it had been focused on renewables. You have "proved" and "demonstrated" nothing of any use, just wasted energy disagreeing for its own sake." I had the same argument. This person is only interested in semantics, so I gave up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government has changed many of them over time to make them more beneficial but could have interpreted them more strictly." Well, let's make this simple then. Tell us all of one law that has been changed in the last 15 years that made a beneficial change to the tax regime for oil and gas companies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government has changed many of them over time to make them more beneficial but could have interpreted them more strictly. Well, let's make this simple then. Tell us all of one law that has been changed in the last 15 years that made a beneficial change to the tax regime for oil and gas companies." No. You want to look at the details. Go and find them. They are there and you are the only one trying to make some obscure point. Much simpler for me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government has changed many of them over time to make them more beneficial but could have interpreted them more strictly." "Well, let's make this simple then. Tell us all of one law that has been changed in the last 15 years that made a beneficial change to the tax regime for oil and gas companies." "No. You want to look at the details. Go and find them." I have found the actual laws. I posted them up above. I haven't found any that confer an advantage specifically on oil and gas companies, because they don't exist. "They are there and you are the only one trying to make some obscure point." The point isn't obscure. The point is that you are wrong. There are no UK laws that provide an advantage solely to oil and gas companies. If they were there, you'd surely be able to point to one. Let's try to find some common ground. We both agree that the fossil fuel industry doesn't deserve subsidies. We both agree that more 'renewables' would be a good thing. Let's agree that, even though oil and gas isn't being subsidised by the government, it's still a bad thing and we both think it should end. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government has changed many of them over time to make them more beneficial but could have interpreted them more strictly. Well, let's make this simple then. Tell us all of one law that has been changed in the last 15 years that made a beneficial change to the tax regime for oil and gas companies. No. You want to look at the details. Go and find them. I have found the actual laws. I posted them up above. I haven't found any that confer an advantage specifically on oil and gas companies, because they don't exist. They are there and you are the only one trying to make some obscure point. The point isn't obscure. The point is that you are wrong. There are no UK laws that provide an advantage solely to oil and gas companies. If they were there, you'd surely be able to point to one. Let's try to find some common ground. We both agree that the fossil fuel industry doesn't deserve subsidies. We both agree that more 'renewables' would be a good thing. Let's agree that, even though oil and gas isn't being subsidised by the government, it's still a bad thing and we both think it should end." I can agree that there should be more renewables and that the fossil fuel industry doesn't deserve subsidies. Such certainty from someone who has said that they know nothing about tax might be misplaced. Oil and gas tax is particularly complex and has a particularly influential lobby to influence Government policy. Do you think that they might have ever had any success? Usually, with such complexity, people ask experts in the field. Shall we give that a go? To everyone else, don't bother reading the rest. It's boring but it is a selection of a few quotes from Tax and Tax law firms that show that the oil and gas industry receives specific tax breaks and changes have been made to their advantage. I wouldn't have bothered but hopefully this can finish the pedantry off. Not holding my breath. Random selection: Deloitte Oil and gas taxation in the UK "Capital allowances Capital allowances (tax depreciation) rules that apply to all UK companies also apply to upstream companies. In ADDITION THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC RULES: •first year allowances of 100% are available on qualifying expenditure incurred in the period of acquisition on plant and machinery (subject to a five year ‘use’ test) or mineral exploration and access. This means that in practice, most of, if not all, development capital expenditure can qualify for immediate relief; •if 100% first year allowances on plant are not available, plant and machinery ring fence allowances are available at a rate of 25% on a reducing balance basis (rather than 18% as applies to non-ring fence activities). Similarly, expenditure on mineral exploration and access incurred on certain costs of acquiring mineral assets and related expenditure can be relieved by way of a Mineral Extraction Allowance (MEA) at the rate of 25%, although a reduced rate of 10% applies to certain items; and • costs of oil and gas exploration and appraisal normally attract research and development allowances (RDA) which provide for a 100% write-off of the expenditure for tax purposes as incurred."d."Field allowances were introduced in 2009 to provide an incentive for development of commercially marginal oil and gas fields." "A SPECIFIC 100% capital allowance is available for decommissioning expenditure, provided that the expenditure is incurred on the decommissioning of plant and machinery that forms part of a UK offshore installation and the expenditure is incurred on closing down all or part of an oil field." EY Global oil and gas tax guide 2019 "Oil allowance Oil allowance is a relief designed to prevent petroleum revenue tax from being an undue burden on more marginal fields, and it allows a certain amount of production to be earned free of petroleum revenue tax for at least the first 10 years of a field’s life." "Transferable tax history for oil and gas companies As part of the Autumn Budget 2017, it was announced that transferable tax history (TTH) will be introduced for deals where the license transfer is approved by the UK Oil & Gas Authority on or after 1 November 2018.10 The corporation tax system previously discriminated against new or recent entrants to the UK continental shelf when bidding for mature assets due to their lack of corporation tax history. TTH seeks to neutralize this effect, ensuring it does not act as a barrier to transactions involving late-life assets. In essence, TTH enables the buyer of an interest in a field to acquire some of the corporation tax history of the seller, thus enabling the buyer to be in broadly the same corporation tax position as the seller when it comes to achieving relief for decommissioning expenditure in relation to that field." Ashurst UK North Sea fiscal regime "On 17 March 2016, in Budget 2016, the Chancellor announced a number of headline-grabbing measures designed to support the UK oil and gas industry and to encourage investment in exploration, infrastructure and late-life asselts." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We have to reduce our Carbon output with extreme urgency. This party is good at hypocrisy but not working in the best interests of the majority. " Extreme urgency? How long have we got? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Such certainty from someone who has said that they know nothing about tax might be misplaced." You might need new reading glasses. I said that I was barely qualified in accounting, not that I knew nothing about tax. That huge wall of text you've posted above shows that oil and gas gets treated differently. I've said as much several times. My point is that all of those special details are either equivalent, or less advantageous, than those that apply to all other industries. Oil and gas doesn't have beneficial tax status. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Such certainty from someone who has said that they know nothing about tax might be misplaced. You might need new reading glasses. I said that I was barely qualified in accounting, not that I knew nothing about tax. That huge wall of text you've posted above shows that oil and gas gets treated differently. I've said as much several times. My point is that all of those special details are either equivalent, or less advantageous, than those that apply to all other industries. Oil and gas doesn't have beneficial tax status." They are SPECIFICALLY written for the oil and gas industry following policy written to encourage it SPECIFICALLY. It says so in actual words. Don't read and continue to believe that you are cleverer than people who actually know what they're talking about. Enjoy your pedantry as you have no actually useful point to make following all of these posts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
