(click to show/hide)
Afaik the Greens also prioritise military funding pretty low and would probably push for nuclear disarmament, something that all nations should do imo.
I have to say I do disagree with their stance on nuclear power, but I think most of their policies are healthier for our country on the whole. I would rather have our infrastructure under the responsibility of government than businesses that operate for profit.
Afaik the Greens also prioritise military funding pretty low and would probably push for nuclear disarmament, something that all nations should do imo.
And universal living wage. Surely the investment would actually be worth it?
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ed.html
I really have to wonder how you come to the conclusion that there isn't a viable alternative while blaming misinformation and propaganda on others :lol:(click to show/hide)
Nationalise everything because the govt runs everything efficiently! :|
*hope labour never nationalise anything. they ruined our economy and are nearly bankrupt as a party :D
7 policies that cost a lot of money, where is the money gonna come from?
And then best Korea is only nation in the world with nukes and rules the world. GG well played.
And then best Korea is only nation in the world with nukes and rules the world. GG well played.
Also i always get the feeling that if a Green party would rule a country the hipsters would have an orgasm.
After Fukishima, the safefty of these nuclear plants are certainly under question.Yes, i certainly wouldn't want any more nuclear plants in EU, what with all the 7+ magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis that we get.
Got an interesting fact: We've never had a bad Green Party Government.(click to show/hide)
From reading this thread it leads me to believe that the UK greens just rant like crazy people... Is that the case?
Yes, i certainly wouldn't want any more nuclear plants in EU, what with all the 7+ magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis that we get.
See what i quoted.
I believe he is talking about the Tridents not the handful of power plates. The UK does spend billions on it's nukes.YEAH! Getting rid of nukes is cool and cheap! And look around - there are countries who had nukes, got rid of them, received security guarantees and didn't suffer much for that... well... <cough> loosing parts of their territory </cough>... erm... right... that got bongled up somehow. Shaite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom
"The current Trident system cost £12.6bn (at 1996 prices) and costs £280m a year to maintain. Options for replacing Trident range from £5bn for the missiles alone to £20-30bn for missiles, submarines and research facilities. At minimum, for the system to continue after around 2020, the missiles will need to be replaced.[89]"
Take a look at this https://bze.org.au/
It's Australian spesific but it's doable pretty much everywhere. I used to work for these guys. Pretty impressive stuff.
If we rolled out CST just to power Victoria that would reduces it's cost per kilowatt hour to the same as brown coal. What you have to realise about that is this. Australia pays almost nothing for Brown Coal because we produce something like half the worlds supply. Queensland (where I live) produces 25% of the worlds coking coal... Pretty crazy. When QLD flooded it drove the price up massively.
Another random fact the area flooded during the 2011 floods that shut the mines and ports down was the same size as... Germany and France combined, that was just the flooded area and that was about 50% of the state. We are a big fucking country.
The UK won't be anexed by Russia any time soon. That reference is straw manning bullshit.YEAH! So glad. Much happy! :rolleyes:
Dunno if anyone has seen this yet but one thing I do agree on is banning the burka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgLZSZqEZF8
I think pretty much everyone in my area is going UKIP or BNP.
If he was British, Panos would definitely vote for BNP.
I really have to wonder how you come to the conclusion that there isn't a viable alternative while blaming misinformation and propaganda on others :lol:
Yes, i certainly wouldn't want any more nuclear plants in EU, what with all the 7+ magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis that we get.
For the time being, there is no better alternative. Nuclear is space-efficient, GHG-free, safe, cheap and we are only using one of the oldest technologies right now. Fourth generation nuclear plants will be awesome.That's is probably one of the most common misconceptions there are: Nuclear power is NOT cheap.
I wouldn't argue it is either clean or cheap. I'd simply argue that it is the most viable route for solving short term energy problems until a more viable solution has been researched and can be implemented. That is purely in terms of meeting supply demands for current growing energy consumption.I don't really know for other countries but Germany shut down like 8 plants after Fukishima and is still selling something between 30% and 40% of their energy production to Austria, France and other states.
Growing energy consumption? Seems to me that home appliances are designed to use less power than before. Regular people at their homes don't use more energy. Unless you take population increase in that equation, but areas where population is raising rapidly are rural and undeveloped areas.Light pollution comes to mind here.
If there really is need for more energy, we can thank industry for that. With different social organization there would be no need for nuclear power. Actually our needs for energy will decrease in that case.
Wind and solar energy is still horribly ineffective and thus expensive for industrial use but it could prove useful for households, again, if we change current social structure a bit. I personally don't need billboards and shiny lights everywhere, actually don't need them at all. My ideal world doesn't contain something we call marketing.
So yeah, we greens are kinda like communists. But not in soviet communism sense.
I don't really know for other countries but Germany shut down like 8 plants after Fukishima and is still selling something between 30% and 40% of their energy production to Austria, France and other states.
And considering that it takes up to 10 years to plan a plant, get the paperworks for it and actually build it and make it run, you can hardly argue with short term stuff. Not to mention that Nuclear power isn't flexible. It takes days to shut down or power up a reactor, so it's nothing you use for anything else but basic power supply. The consumption overall isn't a flat line though. You get peaks in the morning for example when everyone is getting up and turning on their coffee machines. Those peaks are buffered by coal or gas plants, they can be fired up in minutes... Well, already off topic that, I guess :wink:
Well 10 years is relatively short term in terms of energy production. I seriously doubt we will have any major leaps in clean, efficient and cheap energy production so something has to replace conventional fossil fuels as becoming more reliant on imports isn't exactly desirable.Last post, I swear :D
Anyway you are right, off topic I suppose :P
That's is probably one of the most common misconceptions there are: Nuclear power is NOT cheap.
Well, if you leave out waste disposal and dismantling the plants after their use, it comes equal to coal or something (don't have the exact numbers ready and I am too lazy to look them up).
German energy providers are right now trying to sell of their old plants, which were shut down, to the state with some obvious stupid fond-ruse. If they have to pay dismantling and waste disposal by themselves, they gonna be broke within a few years just by those costs. Nuclear power is only cheap when the plant is running.
Funny fact, when you get numbers for the energy costs by "way of generation", waste disposal is always calculated into the price for every single one of them except Nuclear. One should wonder why.
I am not saying that every Nuclear plant should be shut down right now. That's Green people bullshit but saying Nuclear energy is clean and cheap is just the same bullshit on the other side of the scale.
Not to mention big consortium of enterprises being sabotaged by state interests when they actually try to build big alternative stuff (looking at you, France). Lame excuses, some are hilarious even, by politicians why certain deals for really clean energy from other countries are not made (Norway and Germany have one incident which is pathetic and ridiculous at the same time).
There is hardly another topic I've seen more bullshit being spread through official channels than "Energy generation". Maybe cuz I am an electric engineer and happen to know that stuff... So many blatant lies going round, it ain't even funny.
/rant
Last post, I swear :D
Clean and renewable energy is viable from the pure technical point of view. There are so many more concepts beside the windmill and the photovoltaic everyone knows..
Lemme tell you a little story about my country, Germany in case you don't already know...
There was this crazy offer from Norway once. They approached the German chancellor(ette) and some Minister of Industry/Economics/whatever it's called and said "Listen, we have so much water running trough our country, energy is so cheap for us, we can even heat our pedestrian walks in the winter to keep them free from snow and ice. We wanna make you an offer which could be awesome for both our nations. We build more water plants, like a bunch of them, and get people working there. Then we produce so much energy, we sell it to you for as good as nothing. You'll get clean and really cheap energy and we get some money and places for people to work at. And since we need to transport that energy, we would even put the cable into the sea for cheap, hell, we'll do it for free! What do you say?"
Some time went by, analyst made calculations claiming that deal could save the average energy consumer in Germany costs up to 45%! They were excited and full of joy. "We can have really cheap energy and clean on top! How awesome!"
Above mentioned Minister said nothing. Chancellor(ette) said nothing.
One day the crazy Norwegians came by again and asked "So? Did come to a decision about that energy thing we suggested?"
The proud and fine Minister took a deep breath and answered "Yea... well... you know... that cable in the sea... yea, no can do... it has a different specification than we need it according to our rulebook. No, sorry, not interested. Have a good day!"
It really happened like that. The "No" from our fine Minister had been made official like 2 - 3 years afterwards.
One of the main reasons it didn't go through was some "expert" of the ministry who said that the cable can't be connected to the plugs (simplified) we have at the shore. After the elections the Minister was replaced by someone else and that expert went working for Vattenfall. :lol:
Keeps pissing me off whenever I think about that shit.
Isn't nuclear cheaper than the usual suspects of green energy if we really count everything ?Granted, saving wind energy somewhere is an issue. And solar panels get better by the month but are not that efficient (current gen is at something like 40% efficiency... BUT - it's a big but - the energy costs are Null. Sunshine is free, wind is free (though wind when you don't want/need one is an actual problem).
Building dozens of wind turbines far away from each other, producing energy when nobody needs it doesn't seem to be a good deal.
Neither do solar panels that have a barely positive energy balance.
here are even simpler methods using the sun for example (oil, mirrors, turbine) which are way easier to build and maintain with just a part of the costs.
There have been calculations - theoretical! - that planting half the Sahara with those oil-mirror-things could supply full Europe.
That's why there is the word "theoretical".
I don't get the purpose of that statement. What I read is: "Renewable energy is good because x, y, z. Here's a theoretical example that shows how inefficient and unfeasible it is."Right now the most heard/used argument against renewable energy is their cost/power rate. Too expensive for the power they supply. My argument against this statement is that sunshine and wind doesn't cost a thing and that even today a proper amount of power could be generated if people were willing to get their arse going and/or the industry giants stop spoiling it wherever they can... I digress.
Living Wage - This country needs this, the minimum wage is ok but it is not sufficient enough to live on, it needs to be increased by around £1-2
Depends on your situation. I'm married, my wife is currently not earning as is working on a start up business idea, I only earn minimum wage, pay £250 a month to commute an hour each way every day for my job, we rent a 1 bed flat (in Brighton so expensive) and we manage fine. We don't live lavishly, we live well within our means but can still eat out once a week (more than most) and can plan holidays and day trips all within that budget.
I think if people managed their budgets more it wouldn't be an issue. The problem is people feel the need to spend on things they can't actually afford rather than prioritising between needs and wants. A lot of people don't understand that if you want something, you need to save for it rather than spending money you don't have because you want it NOW.
If you have kids, that's another story.
7 policies that cost a lot of money, where is the money gonna come from?Selling weed.
You are extremely luck then.
I've had to study a lot of stuff based on poverty and minimum wage and all sorts of stuff like that. It depends more on location, benefits, hours, etc etc than how much you earn, but a living wage (all in all) would be a huge benefit.
Move to Newcastle man. We have a 3 bed house in a decent part of town for the price of a 1 bed appt in brighton, the commute is about 5 mins to town. And min wage is same for the whole country so even on it, you'd be better off.