Quake3World

Memphis wrote:So says a 'climate accountant'...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/ ... ntant-says

Hardly beyond belief. I do like the argument that choices are made for people. Though, at the end of the day (slashes wrists a bit), if you drive, you do (if minisculey) fuel the need for Oil.inc.

Not to mention the thousands of other things made from oil, starting with the device you're posting with.

That was enlightening

on the subject of energy subsidies:

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/25/the ... subsidies/

I was going to argue but then I remembered I'm not yank, but when speaking globally it's hard to address because of the varying levels of energy commitment from each nation.

In the UK it's 6ish billion VS 3.5 and when you consider the market share that's a bloody good proportion of funding . I'm pretty sure that includes the Tax breaks those Tory fuckwits gave their friends and BP and Shell n all.

And still makes little headway :/. Its biggest problem is Nuclear, only green energy can compete with that and unfortunately Nuclear is a good trade off between cost / impact on the environment. Everything else, well, it can't even compete with a 60%+ tax rate on oil. I don't know what the Tories plans are for the future but it ain't good.

Wind farms are causing problems in Wales n all cos they're stuffing them anywhere. In places that would have planning applications disapproved otherwise.

it's too late. the planet is fucked

Now, now, now.

Arctic ices increasing / stablising and a smaller ozone hole. We're fucking owning this shit.

A friend of mine who works for a certain Government energy regulating body swears wind is a far better solution to nuclear at the moment, mostly because it costs a huge amount less and doesn't involve outsourcing a massive amount of our energy infrastructure to China (e.g., Hinkley).

I wouldn't want a wind farm in my backyard but I don't get the whole "they look ugly" debate. I think they look quite nice

It varies from country to country but as a rule of thumb Nuclear is cheaper - but even with the UKs proportion of subsidies being weighted in wind powers favour (IE they get funding for construction / development / planning as a green energy (subsidies)) I've read the prices are pretty similiar in ideal conditions.

The outsourcing just comes down the Tories not wanting to reach into their own pocket.

losCHUNK wrote:Now, now, now.

Arctic ices increasing / stablising and a smaller ozone hole. We're fucking owning this shit.

Arctic ice is decreasing and the ozone hole is getting better because we banned CFC's 25+ years ago...

Nuclear isn't cheaper when you factor in the huge subsidies, cost overruns and invisible costs. Also wind turbines don't produce millions of spent radioactive fuel rods that have to managed for thousands of years.

Yea but Antarcic ice

Arctic Ice is having a bit of a rebound too (why I mention stabilising)

And banned CFC's

We rock.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Nuclear isn't cheaper when you factor in the huge subsidies, cost overruns and invisible costs. Also wind turbines don't produce millions of spent radioactive fuel rods that have to managed for thousands of years.

I just told you the subsidies of green VS fossil in the UK and how green energy is subsidised in the UK.

losCHUNK wrote:Yea but Antarcic ice

Arctic Ice is having a bit of a rebound too (why I mention stabilising)

And banned CFC's

We rock.

source your claims here please.

You're joking ?.

The only one that is contestable is the Arctic sea Ice and despite having a rough 2 years is still up on its lowest ?

losCHUNK wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Nuclear isn't cheaper when you factor in the huge subsidies, cost overruns and invisible costs. Also wind turbines don't produce millions of spent radioactive fuel rods that have to managed for thousands of years.

I just told you the subsidies of green VS fossil in the UK and how green energy is subsidised in the UK.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Real_Cost_o ... _Power.php

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 04903.html

etc.

losCHUNK wrote:You're joking ?.

The only one that is contestable is the Arctic sea Ice and despite having a rough 2 years is still up on its lowest ?

even if the antarctic ice is rebounding a bit, the total global sea ice is decreasing. As well the planet has been getting hotter. The hotter the ocean, the bigger the ocean as the molecules expand.

I just don't see anything at all that paints climate change as getting better in any regard. Searching for evidence, would gladly read yours...

So from 3 to 1 and we shift the arguement.

Ok, we're fucked

losCHUNK wrote:So from 3 to 1 and we shift the arguement.

Ok, we're fucked

not sure what from 3 to 1 is but i didn't shift the argument unless i misunderstood your point about antarctic ice and ozone depletion.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... port-shows

Nah, there was 3 points to provide a source for which I genuinely thought a pisstake (CFCs ?).

I focused on 3 main positives. I havn't got all the answers yo, but depending on what study you read or what research you get into the answers vary from we're fucked to 'not so bad'.

All I can say is we're still here.

you should have read seremtan's link too

I skimmed it, I didn't / don't have the time to jump into it.

What I did do is try and grasp the concept, so I applied it to the UK energy industry (which is / was kind to renewables) and looked at it from a consumer stand point.

When it comes to oil comapanies n all, they don't get these breaks cos they're dirty fuel burners. They get these breaks cos they're big business. The amount of convos I've got into only for it to delve into conspiracies

And I say fuck big business regardless

Edit: Briefly looked at your 2nd link but I'm almost certain that construction costs / waste disposal is reflected in the price pmw. The last I read the prices were similiar I shall try and find some material on that or wether it's changed since, but the price I remember modern Nuclear electricity being about the 100 mark with wind being 10% off with the next generation of plants set to be more efficient.

PhoeniX wrote:A friend of mine who works for a certain Government energy regulating body swears wind is a far better solution to nuclear at the moment, mostly because it costs a huge amount less and doesn't involve outsourcing a massive amount of our energy infrastructure to China (e.g., Hinkley).

I wouldn't want a wind farm in my backyard but I don't get the whole "they look ugly" debate. I think they look quite nice

There are a few wind farms in Vermont that I pass occasionally, and I think they look nice, too. I think a lot of it is due to what they represent to people, because I've met individuals who live near them that hate the turbines. They also don't happen to give two fucks about climate change.

For the Welsh, they complain about it's ruining the landscape

[lvlshot]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/18/article-2280336-17992D76000005DC-761_634x414.jpg[/lvlshot]

Matter of opinion I spose.

Edit: better photo

yea they ruin it