- This topic has 28 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
Amazing opening post – one could be forgiven for thinking it was a cut and paste propaganda job.
‘wind turbines kill significant numbers of birds.’
Anything up to 100,000 in the UK isn’t it? What you going to do about the 55m birds killed each year by cats? Set up another Tufton St ‘think tank’ to deal with them? Simpler solution – make them safer. Oh, it’s already being looked in to!
1 user thanked author for this post.
Don’t need to cut and paste anything, Deerey, 100% my own words. All you’ve revealed is how little you understand by dissing it. Same as 64, who clearly doesn’t have a clue about the hundreds of years of fossil fuels still in reserve. Either way, what I’ve written is indisputable and anyone who thinks otherwise is in cloud cuckoo land. Very happy to debate with anyone who disagrees, though having a constructive argument on here is pretty much impossible.
TW is absolutely correct, of course, although it’s not just those in power but also those in opposition who don’t get it. Hence the complete mess we and the rest of the Western World are now in.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It should be noted that said authors are not without issue:
A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book
However, I am not interested in conspiracies about elites trying to silence dissent, from defenders who can’t tolerate criticism, and see such as silencing.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Nuclear is still very viable for the future but the way Buck’s dismisses greener options out of hand is so blinkered IMO, refusing to move forward to newer ways of providing our energy is just the way the next generation want to do it. Like others before we have to move forward and not stick in the past vegetating, if it wasn’t for progress we would not be communicating in this way now.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think we’re in danger of monopolising the issue. I am not denying things like the immobility to nuclear for a role, but it’s multifaceted, so to say this is solely because of energy direction is too simplistic.
Also, those who have flaws in their work won’t be without controversy. You can’t just dismiss criticism because it comes from many sources.
Contrarianism does not equal greater credibility. I have seen this claim come often from many, including on here (alcazar a prime culprit). The idea that those who are on the side of a majority position or mainstream position are somehow being gullible sheep. As if you’re being a radical free thinker for being different, it means you’re thinking outside the box. It doesn’t. Blindly rejecting more mainstream opinion for some fringe view is as illogical and gullible as blindly trusting anything someone says.
I am not stating you are doing this here, but it’s worth bearing in mind when praising people because they go against a more common position. It doesn’t automatically put you in some enlightened position or make critics wrong.
1 user thanked author for this post.
What a ridiculous comment, IA. I have nothing against renewables per se. Why on earth would I? We have solar panels on our house and they work well. Who wouldn’t want a source of energy that was environmentally friendly, secure and cheap. All that I’ve done is explain the problems associated with renewables, which are not as environmentally friendly, secure of cheap as many have claimed. In fact they have a lot of problems associated with them.
I’ve said on numerous occasions on this board that we would sleep-walk into massive problems if we believed the hype around renewables; and that is precisely what’s happened and will continue to happen if we don’t accept these problems are real. The ‘experts’ who claim otherwise all have vested interests, either political, ideological or, increasingly, financial. People believing otherwise are just ignorant or naive. I’m sorry if that sounds unfair but it’s the reality we’re facing.
IF renewables were as good as they’ve been made out to be we wouldn’t now be facing crippling energy costs. Businesses wouldn’t have needed incentives or subsidies to build them if they were genuinely commercially viable. In truth they’re not. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them but people deserve to be told the truth about what they really cost when everything that’s needed to support them — and without which they wouldn’t be viable — is taken into account.
Btw, 64 and Siderite, I’ve checked on the coal reserves available and for the USA, which has the biggest reserves, the recoverable amount equates to 470 years at current consumption (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-coal-is-left.php). This would almost certainly increase over time as the economics change and technology improves.
Also Siderite, I don’t think that I’m an ‘expert’ at all. What I am is someone who checks the facts for themselves. I would urge everyone to be cynical about ‘experts’ and double-check for themselves what they’re being told. The reality is often very different.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I wasn’t saying 50 years is a definitive figure. I was pointing out that the issue over oil is less to do with volume of reserves in total, mote total economically extractable.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Your demeanour doesn’t bother me in the slightest, Siderite. You’re perfectly entitled to your views and I respect your right to have them, regardless of how negative or positive they might be towards me or anyone else. I would simply ask you to understand that as someone whose political views are different to the vast majority on this board I’ve taken a lot of abuse. Some might think I deserve it, which is up to them, but either way it explains why I take the position that I do.
Tbh I can see how others may have aggravated you same as the other way round. Everything is polarised right now. I have an idea I might share tomorrow to improve things, though it will probably achieve little, so stay tuned if you want to laugh at how naff it is.
2 users thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.