Re: UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!

[Eeyore]

Yup.

Governementst should refrain from working out how to save energy:

It had nothing to do with Government.

It's the 'green movement' with its promotion of bio-fuels that's resulted in high
demand from the public 'to appear green' that can't be met from indigenous supply
which is in turn destroying rainforests.

Oh, the irony !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

If the tax on home fuel and gas and on industrial fuel was te same as
that on road fuel, no one would accept a house that was anything else
than insulated to the sort of standard you might see in central Canada.

Taking government spending in toto, that's no different to offering free home
insulation upgrades. The money simply gets there by a slightly different route.

Taxes, subsidies, thay all amount to the same thing in the end.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

So, the top climate scientists are all wrong,

No, actually some top climate scientists think AGW is bull.

the Un is wrong,

It normally is. No surprise there. The UN has a consistent track record of *uck-ups.

Al Gore is wrong,

Al Gore's not a scientist last time I checked but merely a worthless scheming
POLITICIAN. Are you seriously saying he should be believed about AGW when he rejects
the idea of a small 'carbon footprint' for himself ? It's a case of "do what I say"
with Gore, not "do what I do".

but you are right? I don`t think so.

But you're a gullible IDIOT.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Those who believe the anti Gore propaganda are dupes of big business-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

And you'd believe what the Guardian says ? Have you seen the disarray their precious
Liberal Party is in ?

Bwahahahahahahaaa !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate
change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish
quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to
attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Rubbish. It was backed by the New Party.
http://www.newparty.co.uk/

Long overdue. Democracy together with responsible and accountable politics is nearly
dead in the UK at this time. We currently merely have a few tired old nags dragging
out their death throes.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the
test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure
Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for
lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

What's wrong with either of those ?

Nuclear power is the only sensible option if you believe in radical reduction of CO2
emisions from electricity generation and you want that electricity to be available for
more than a few hours a day.

Bring it on. There are some excellent French designed reactors that have been quietly
and uncontroversially (and safely) supplying 80%+ of France's electricity needs for
decades. And inexpensively too btw.

The British power reactors were an economic farce dictated originally by the need to
use them to produce plutonium for bombs and then finally by the adoption of a
'techonology too far' perhaps in the case of the AGR which was 'too clever by half'
mostly and as a result cost an utter fortune.

Graham

 

[Doctor Drivel]

If you are a decent sort of chap who does =not= smoke pot, what are you
doing =faking= it to impress people who do?! Makes no sense at all.... I
used to smoke pot; I faked =not= smoking it, but I never faked smoking it.
Clinton is a foole.

He is not as he knew more would believe him than never.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

I dare say they would but it's not going to happen is it. Science is a bitch like
that !

So how about some meaningful statements ?

well how about the USA giving a few billion to the WHO to buy the rights
to all anti AIDS drugs and put THAT in the public domain?

Not quite the same..but in the spirit of.

But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: just
tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You can use
the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

What's wrong with either of those ?

Nuclear power is the only sensible option if you believe in radical reduction of CO2
emisions from electricity generation and you want that electricity to be available for
more than a few hours a day.

Bring it on. There are some excellent French designed reactors that have been quietly
and uncontroversially (and safely) supplying 80%+ of France's electricity needs for
decades. And inexpensively too btw.

The British power reactors were an economic farce dictated originally by the need to
use them to produce plutonium for bombs and then finally by the adoption of a
'techonology too far' perhaps in the case of the AGR which was 'too clever by half'
mostly and as a result cost an utter fortune.

Graham

Agreed on all counts.

The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.

However conversely a separator capable of achieving reactor grade
uranium is not NECESSARILY at all capable of refining down to weapons
grade URANIUM.

Which is why there are UN nuclear inspectorates..although these seem to
being killed off a shade rapidly.(Kelly)

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

It was pure LUCK that N.O. hadn't been struck by a 'Katrina' before and their luck
finally ran out. If you live in an area that's prone to hurricanes you're taking
risks. The poor workmanship finished the job.

'event cascade'

It was a combination.

How many timber frame houses in the USA will be destroyed by tornadoes,
if tornado frequency and intensity goes up 30%..?

How many more square mile of land will be flooded if PEAK storm
rainfall goes up 30%?, on average..

and so on.

 

[Eeyore]

well how about the USA giving a few billion to the WHO to buy the rights
to all anti AIDS drugs and put THAT in the public domain?

Not quite the same..but in the spirit of.

But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple: just
tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You can use
the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.

Not going to happen in the USA is it ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

If the defences had been built properly ... NO.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.

No breeder is required. Enriched uranium fuel will produce plutonium in a simple thermal
reactor. Doesn't even need to be a power reactor.You just need to be careful with the burn
rate and extract the used fuel earlier rather than later, so the plutonium itself isn't
burnt up.

Graham

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

John Stumbles wrote:

(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions
And how would that be ?

Any one of a million ways.

Lack of any meaningful answer or even any attempt to answer noted.

I didn't tell you how to count beyond ten without taking your socks off
either, prat.

How hve I reduced my energy usage?
Ive stoped driving a large expensive thirsty car everywhere.
I spend more time shopping online, and getting stuff delivered via cheap
cost efficient diesel vans than sitting in traffic queues to visit my
local shopping mall.
I have insulated my house as well as I can.
I run open fires that burn wood I cut from my land. Every little helps.
I work from home as much as possible.
I buy secondhand goods whose energy of manufacture has already been paid
for wherever possible.

Why? because its cost effective with rapidly rising energy prices.
As much as anything.

What could government do to make more people behave similarly?
Tax fuel, and tax NEW goods, And NOT tax income, savings, capital
assets, and secondhand goods.

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them. And with
labor costs maybe 40% cheaper, that would be a double whammy.

Government policy is geared to encourage a throwaway borrow-and-spend,
lifestyle.

Flip the taxation regime around and encourage a thrifty make-do-and-mend
society, and our resource consumption will plummet.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

It had nothing to do with Government.

It's the 'green movement' with its promotion of bio-fuels that's resulted in high
demand from the public 'to appear green' that can't be met from indigenous supply
which is in turn destroying rainforests.

Oh, the irony !

Indeed: Tax fossil fuel. henlet hatever technologies are cost effective
come up.

If rainforests are Good Things, tax anything that happens as a result of
rainforest destruction, and pay subsidies to people managing rain forests.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Taking government spending in toto, that's no different to offering free home
insulation upgrades. The money simply gets there by a slightly different route.

It is, and it isn't.

Taxes are easy to apply because we have mechanisms in place to do just
that. If yu spal a big fuel tax on the ol companies, you hav few easily
monitrable targts.

Subsidies need to be applied for, and have a hugely wasteful extra
bureaucracy to administer them. I have seldom found any goverment
handouts that need to be applied for to be worth the trouble of
applying for them.

OTOH every time petrol goes up another 5p a liter, I am acutely aware of
how much it costs to fill the tank, and teh idea of a cheaper to run car
looms even higher in my list of things to be considered.

Taxes, subsidies, thay all amount to the same thing in the end.

Yes and no. We do NOT have a mechanism to distribute subsidies to every
man, women company and child, in place. We DO have a mechanism to tax
every man woman and child, and company, in place.

In particular by scrapping taxes on savings and wealth, and labour, and
putting it all on CONSUMPTION via the VAT system, we have a perfect
opportunity to move towards a highly employed society, that exhibits
extreme thriftiness.

 

[Morris Dovey]

Eeyore wrote:
| The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|| But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple:
|| just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You
|| can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.
|
| Not going to happen in the USA is it ?

Good guess.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Eeyore wrote:
| The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|| But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple:
|| just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control. You
|| can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.
|
| Not going to happen in the USA is it ?

Good guess.

Don't be so sure.
First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet.

Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel
make just as much profit.

However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets
stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to
stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that
gets someone elected.

And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money
doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic
fundamentalists pockets instead.

*seen the dollar valuation recently?

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

No breeder is required. Enriched uranium fuel will produce plutonium in a simple thermal
reactor. Doesn't even need to be a power reactor.You just need to be careful with the burn
rate and extract the used fuel earlier rather than later, so the plutonium itself isn't
burnt up.

I stand corrected.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

If the defences had been built properly ... NO.

Graham

So basically the answer to gun crime is to fore everyone to walk around
in armour plate that can stand a .45 at 2 yards range?

I think you should promote this sort of logic. It might catch on.