Not again :( this time he,s going to convert the world to green energy
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not again :( this time he,s going to convert the world to green energy
FFS where do they get there ideas from?
is it a prerequisite, that they believe they can change the world by thinking up a four point plan
Brown pushes for new oil deal - MSN News UK - news & weather
Not, " i will come up with a plan to drive the prices back down"
its "i will stabilise it"
so i can splurge the extra revenue i,m getting
Mart
is it a prerequisite, that they believe they can change the world by thinking up a four point plan
Brown pushes for new oil deal - MSN News UK - news & weather
Not, " i will come up with a plan to drive the prices back down"
its "i will stabilise it"
so i can splurge the extra revenue i,m getting
Mart
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Skunthorpe/Doncaster (UK)
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way planning is done at the moment scares me....
At the moment they are busy bolting a new lane on the M1 at a cost of mucha, ripping out all the bridges and putting in new ones. I have been saying to everyone that will listen
"while they are at it why not put in bigger bridges, costs no more land as its under an existing public road, not that much more in construction etc but when they want an extra lane its easy and they only need buy a bit more land down the edges....."
Everyone agrees this seems logical and can see no reason why they would not. Until a planning friend pointed out that by the time we require another lane they want everyone on public transport, so in terms of capacity this is as big as it will ever get. Is it just me or is this a pipe dream thats going to cost us more in the long run?!
At the moment they are busy bolting a new lane on the M1 at a cost of mucha, ripping out all the bridges and putting in new ones. I have been saying to everyone that will listen
"while they are at it why not put in bigger bridges, costs no more land as its under an existing public road, not that much more in construction etc but when they want an extra lane its easy and they only need buy a bit more land down the edges....."
Everyone agrees this seems logical and can see no reason why they would not. Until a planning friend pointed out that by the time we require another lane they want everyone on public transport, so in terms of capacity this is as big as it will ever get. Is it just me or is this a pipe dream thats going to cost us more in the long run?!
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think we have here yet another example of bashing Brown no matter what he says.
What is actually wrong with what is reported in that news item? The world does not have an inexhaustible supply of oil hence a long term plan is needed. Maybe if we'd had a long term plan 10 years ago the current 'oil crisis' wouldn't be happening.
Short term fixes are all very well, but just maybe they are the reason we are where we are now.
No fan of Brown, but can't see anything wrong in that news item. Sorry if that doesn't go down well with the SN NSR NL lynch mob.
What is actually wrong with what is reported in that news item? The world does not have an inexhaustible supply of oil hence a long term plan is needed. Maybe if we'd had a long term plan 10 years ago the current 'oil crisis' wouldn't be happening.
Short term fixes are all very well, but just maybe they are the reason we are where we are now.
No fan of Brown, but can't see anything wrong in that news item. Sorry if that doesn't go down well with the SN NSR NL lynch mob.
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched the scottish prat on bbc news doing his speech.
Not sure who it was, but when the daft wazzock said "climate change" some guy the camera cut to let a wry smile out... Said it all really...
Oil is most certainly not inexhuastable and to suggest alternative supplies in the name of providing us with self sustainable fuel is commendable, but to infer that it has anything to do with "climate change" makes a mockery of our "leader" and those he is paid to represent.
Ah well, Gord, make the most of the 20 or so months you have left...
Not sure who it was, but when the daft wazzock said "climate change" some guy the camera cut to let a wry smile out... Said it all really...
Oil is most certainly not inexhuastable and to suggest alternative supplies in the name of providing us with self sustainable fuel is commendable, but to infer that it has anything to do with "climate change" makes a mockery of our "leader" and those he is paid to represent.
Ah well, Gord, make the most of the 20 or so months you have left...
#5
This article is worth a read - somebody actually doing it scientifically for a change !
Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap | The Register
Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap | The Register
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oo'p Norf
Posts: 873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is urging the oil-rich countries of the Gulf to invest some of the $3 trillion (£1.5 trillion) profits they have amassed during the current oil shock in alternative power production in Britain - including a new generation of nuclear plants.
Not to mention the real possibility of turning over control of some of these new nuclear facilites to 'investors' from politically unstable middle eastern countries is probably not a good idea!
Trending Topics
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh yeah I can see that working... Some Oil Rich Sheik thinking.. oh yeah hang on, I'll splurge a load of cash into the UK, so they can have cheaper energy and won't have to buy any of my oil anymore!!... Errr.. how about boll*cks I'd rather restock my harem, buy a couple of yachts with diamond encrusted everything, a hundred race horses and a few camels..
Not to mention the real possibility of turning over control of some of these new nuclear facilites to 'investors' from politically unstable middle eastern countries is probably not a good idea!
Not to mention the real possibility of turning over control of some of these new nuclear facilites to 'investors' from politically unstable middle eastern countries is probably not a good idea!
Dave
#9
Scooby Regular
Alternative fuels have been available for a number of years now,it's just been kept at a low profile.probably because there is too much money being made from oil..If there were any Garages near me that had LPG pumps,i would of converted long ago.But there isn't,although the price of LPG and Bio has gone up in price anyway.
#10
Fantastic, Sand Dwellers with Trillions, they will only spend it on planet shaped caravans and fleets of cars they will never drive.
I am no Communist but this isnt Capitalism in any sensible from. I really dont like going cap in hand to them, we need to make our own energy and reduce our dependance on other countries, we cannot be beholding to Mental Russians and Middle Eastern types who just bung the price up on a whim, they dont care wheterh out pensioners are warm during the Winter. I think that at the moment there is so much money flowing that way they may have to lower or stabilise prices as they will have bled the market dry and people will start reducing their dependancy, may take a while but they should really look to not kill the Golden Goose just yet.
It should be re-nationalised, Wind and Nuclear as the main goverment owned power producers with Oil and Coal taking a back seat over the next 20 years, as Shareholders, Sheikhs and Russian Oligarchs f*ck things up, the ability to heat your home, warm water, electric light, cooking and making a brew should not take massive proportions of a families income, these are not luxuries, it should be state run with nobody making a profit as thats whats geting us into this mess, big business setting prices.
At least the current economic climate is accelerating development of alternatives but it seems that clueless Prime Minister of ours is offering our energy future to the same people that control it now, too me that seems short sighted and stupid, we should be looking to over produce and sell it back.
I am no Communist but this isnt Capitalism in any sensible from. I really dont like going cap in hand to them, we need to make our own energy and reduce our dependance on other countries, we cannot be beholding to Mental Russians and Middle Eastern types who just bung the price up on a whim, they dont care wheterh out pensioners are warm during the Winter. I think that at the moment there is so much money flowing that way they may have to lower or stabilise prices as they will have bled the market dry and people will start reducing their dependancy, may take a while but they should really look to not kill the Golden Goose just yet.
It should be re-nationalised, Wind and Nuclear as the main goverment owned power producers with Oil and Coal taking a back seat over the next 20 years, as Shareholders, Sheikhs and Russian Oligarchs f*ck things up, the ability to heat your home, warm water, electric light, cooking and making a brew should not take massive proportions of a families income, these are not luxuries, it should be state run with nobody making a profit as thats whats geting us into this mess, big business setting prices.
At least the current economic climate is accelerating development of alternatives but it seems that clueless Prime Minister of ours is offering our energy future to the same people that control it now, too me that seems short sighted and stupid, we should be looking to over produce and sell it back.
Last edited by J4CKO; 22 June 2008 at 06:57 PM.
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say hats off to the government spin machine employee who came up with "Climate Change".
When they realised the public couldnt be duped with "Global Warming" - what with the globe not warming an' all, the decision to rebrand to "Climate Change" to ensure all random acts of weather can be apportioned to it was most good. Most good.
We do need to be aiming toward national self sufficiency in the long term. Nationalisation may be a good idea (good post Jacko). A steer away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies and the odd nuclear bomb (sorry I mean powerstation) can only be a good way of driving towards that, so hats off to any politician who acknowledges such.
But the minute that smarmy scottish liar mentions the C and C words together, I just switch off and know he is full of doo doo.
When they realised the public couldnt be duped with "Global Warming" - what with the globe not warming an' all, the decision to rebrand to "Climate Change" to ensure all random acts of weather can be apportioned to it was most good. Most good.
We do need to be aiming toward national self sufficiency in the long term. Nationalisation may be a good idea (good post Jacko). A steer away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies and the odd nuclear bomb (sorry I mean powerstation) can only be a good way of driving towards that, so hats off to any politician who acknowledges such.
But the minute that smarmy scottish liar mentions the C and C words together, I just switch off and know he is full of doo doo.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post