The fr*cking problem

pinno

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

Mikey23

Yup..

(Just getting closer to 5k)

sloppyschleckonds

Mikey23 wrote:

Yup..

(Just getting closer to 5k)

'

VTech

You answered your question. It's down to money.

My last 3 years have been mostly down to emissions control and studies and as a planet we are simply not ready to take the next steps needed for environmental fuel savings. It's an amazingly complex subject but every path leads to cash.

I knew of a company in Germany who one day were on the cusp of releasing hydrogen transplant for road cars and the next day they are no longer and the entire team are loving in different parts of the world with more cash than I care to imagine.
As for gas, I expect the same happens. The main players have the cash to pay off the newcomers and the circle continues. This has been the way in te oil industry since black gold was traded openly.

laurentian

VTech wrote:

You answered your question. It's down to money.

My last 3 years have been mostly down to emissions control and studies and as a planet we are simply not ready to take the next steps needed for environmental fuel savings. It's an amazingly complex subject but every path leads to cash.

I knew of a company in Germany who one day were on the cusp of releasing hydrogen transplant for road cars and the next day they are no longer and the entire team are loving in different parts of the world with more cash than I care to imagine.
As for gas, I expect the same happens. The main players have the cash to pay off the newcomers and the circle continues. This has been the way in te oil industry since black gold was traded openly.

Am I correct in interpreting this as the developers of the Hydrogen system being paid off to keep quiet by the oil companies?

seanoconn

laurentian wrote:

VTech wrote:

You answered your question. It's down to money.

My last 3 years have been mostly down to emissions control and studies and as a planet we are simply not ready to take the next steps needed for environmental fuel savings. It's an amazingly complex subject but every path leads to cash.

I knew of a company in Germany who one day were on the cusp of releasing hydrogen transplant for road cars and the next day they are no longer and the entire team are loving in different parts of the world with more cash than I care to imagine.
As for gas, I expect the same happens. The main players have the cash to pay off the newcomers and the circle continues. This has been the way in te oil industry since black gold was traded openly.

Am I correct in interpreting this as the developers of the Hydrogen system being paid off to keep quiet by the oil companies?

That's how I read it.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

So what are you proposing? That the Government energy strategy needs changing in terms of what it incentivises/encourages etc, or are you looking at full scale nationalisation? Or something inbetween?

rolf_f

seanoconn wrote:

laurentian wrote:

VTech wrote:

You answered your question. It's down to money. <br abp="865"><br abp="866">My last 3 years have been mostly down to emissions control and studies and as a planet we are simply not ready to take the next steps needed for environmental fuel savings. It's an amazingly complex subject but every path leads to cash. <br abp="867"><br abp="868">I knew of a company in Germany who one day were on the cusp of releasing hydrogen transplant for road cars and the next day they are no longer and the entire team are loving in different parts of the world with more cash than I care to imagine. <br abp="869">As for gas, I expect the same happens. The main players have the cash to pay off the newcomers and the circle continues. This has been the way in te oil industry since black gold was traded openly.

<br abp="870"><br abp="871">Am I correct in interpreting this as the developers of the Hydrogen system being paid off to keep quiet by the oil companies?

<br abp="872">That's how I read it.

And I don't believe it. At least not as a practical means of stopping technological development on anything but a very short term basis. There's no shortage of bright people in any industry (except maybe banking) who are more interested in the technology than any pay off. You can pay some of the people off some of the time but not all of the people all of the time etc etc.

florerider

Given that the starting point to make hydrogen is gas, and it is a very energy intensive process, why would the oil industry worry?

Unfortunately there are no hydrogen wells.hydrogen is a product, not a raw material.

slowmart

With all the hot air, wind and methane posted here some whiz should be able to create perpetual energy for evermore


And bring peace to all and end poverty.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

So what are you proposing? That the Government energy strategy needs changing in terms of what it incentivises/encourages etc, or are you looking at full scale nationalisation? Or something inbetween?

D'oh.

Could have guessed you would come up with that. Read the bit in bold.

If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change.

Whilst we are at it, if fr*cking was carried put by a nationalised company for the collective good A) would joe public be so concerned about it if It was for the collective good?

arran77

The potential benefits of fr*cking are huge in terms of the energy potential that they could yield as well as the benefits that Piña identifies so to think that this could be put in the hands of the big five energy companies is quite frightening, now while I'm not sure that full scale nationalisation would be better it really needs to looked at very carefully to ensure that these benefits are not squandered or exploited by fat cat private companies.

mr_goo

I would rather the UK invest in fr*cking, than wind farms.

Witch Farm in Poole Bay has been a fr*cking operation since the late 70s. From ground level you would hardly even notice that this operation is there, yet it is Western Europes largest oil field.



But just around the corner out into Bournemouth bay they are proposing the industrialisation of the UKs only UNESCO World Heritage site, namely the Jurassic Coast.





Below is an accurate scale reference of the size of the proposed turbines compared to the Western (Needles) side of the Isle of Wight. Each turbine will be over 650 ft high.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

So what are you proposing? That the Government energy strategy needs changing in terms of what it incentivises/encourages etc, or are you looking at full scale nationalisation? Or something inbetween?

D'oh.

Could have guessed you would come up with that. Read the bit in bold.

If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change.

Whilst we are at it, if fr*cking was carried put by a nationalised company for the collective good A) would joe public be so concerned about it if It was for the collective good?

RTFQ - I only asked you questions, I didn't make a statement

Since when have governments been good at running businesses? I am just about old enough to remember power cuts when it was all nationalised, 'kin useless.

Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

So what are you proposing? That the Government energy strategy needs changing in terms of what it incentivises/encourages etc, or are you looking at full scale nationalisation? Or something inbetween?

D'oh.

Could have guessed you would come up with that. Read the bit in bold.

If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change.

Whilst we are at it, if fr*cking was carried put by a nationalised company for the collective good A) would joe public be so concerned about it if It was for the collective good?

RTFQ - I only asked you questions, I didn't make a statement

Since when have governments been good at running businesses? I am just about old enough to remember power cuts when it was all nationalised, 'kin useless.

Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?

You are splitting hairs (again). Arran made the point well (amazing really when you think about it ).

Stevo_666

Not splitting hairs, it's a fundamental question - so ATFQ

I'm worried about PW, I think you've managed to brainwash him somehow.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not splitting hairs, it's a fundamental question - so ATFQ

I'm worried about PW, I think you've managed to brainwash him somehow.

Nationalise 'food processors', wtf?

Japan's rail is heavily subsidised because communications are key to a thriving economy. Energy is a key issue in the UK and fundamental to the rising cost of living. Energy, like communication is key to the economic strength and stability of a nation. We fall short on both. We have failed to invest (long term) in renewable's, solar energy, well built houses etc etc so we pay a premium for energy because we have to source most of it from abroad. The Russian's hold many European countries to ransom because of our own lack of investment.
This is yet another opportunity for big companies to make big bucks but not for the greater economic welfare of the state.
Would a nationalised fr*cking concern in today's political climate be such a badly run, inefficient thing? I mean, it's not like the Privatised Rail network has been all smiles and happiness, has it? Year after year it comes under greater scrutiny and even government corruption (Re: Virgin Rail contract).

arran77

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm worried about PW, I think you've managed to brainwash him somehow.

It is a little alarming!!

If we are ever to end our reliance on foreign energy, which to be honest doesn't really does any favours, we really need to get our fr*cking act together

While I agree with Stevo that nationalised industries have historically been problematic too as he identified, as I said before the social and economic benefits that fr*cking can bring to this country are so huge that I really think that this is the only option to consider in this case.

Even when you get the government heavily regulating the energy industry as they are alleged to do now I don't believe personally this is enough as the big five are so large and powerful that they are unlikely to be be looking after anyone's interests but their own or their shareholders.

pblakeney

Simply buy shares in the big 5 and the profits go back to the people.

arran77

PBlakeney wrote:

Simply buy shares in the big 5 and the profits go back to the people.

Not that simple is it though as most people can not afford to buy shares.

pblakeney

arran77 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Simply buy shares in the big 5 and the profits go back to the people.

Not that simple is it though as most people can not afford to buy shares.

But they can afford alcohol, cigarettes and Sky TV? :?

For what it is worth, I am not picking on the poor. I am simply offering an alternative option.

pblakeney

I have obviously supplied the perfect solution as debate has ended.

team47b

PBlakeney wrote:

I have obviously supplied the perfect solution as debate has ended.

New debate Energy is not the problem, consumption is.

pinno

team47b wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I have obviously supplied the perfect solution as debate has ended.

New debate Energy is not the problem, consumption is.

That's you snookered Blakeney and the stereotype of poor people is after all, just a stereotype. You don't have to be a benefit claiming, fag smoking, alcohol drinking, Sun reading sky subscriber to be in financial difficulty.

@T47 = isn't consumption intrinsically linked to the acquisitive and the selfish hypnotised by the materialism on constant offer?

Moonbiker

Maybe fr*king should nationalized be delayed & the gas kept as strategic reserve for the countries future as buying energy from abroad is still relatively cheap.

But that thinking very long term.

Any peak oil doomsayers on here?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -recession

Peak oil date does seem to keep getting put further into ther future but surely it must come someday as its a finite resource?

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not splitting hairs, it's a fundamental question - so ATFQ

I'm worried about PW, I think you've managed to brainwash him somehow.

Nationalise 'food processors', wtf?

Japan's rail is heavily subsidised because communications are key to a thriving economy. Energy is a key issue in the UK and fundamental to the rising cost of living. Energy, like communication is key to the economic strength and stability of a nation. We fall short on both. We have failed to invest (long term) in renewable's, solar energy, well built houses etc etc so we pay a premium for energy because we have to source most of it from abroad. The Russian's hold many European countries to ransom because of our own lack of investment.
This is yet another opportunity for big companies to make big bucks but not for the greater economic welfare of the state.
Would a nationalised fr*cking concern in today's political climate be such a badly run, inefficient thing? I mean, it's not like the Privatised Rail network has been all smiles and happiness, has it? Year after year it comes under greater scrutiny and even government corruption (Re: Virgin Rail contract).

You still haven't answered my questions Why not nationalise other important commercial and industrial sectors? Why just one part of the energy supply?

Let's boils this down to the essentials. Your idea is to nationalise part of energy supply and reduce prices to consumers. As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall, all you will do is shift part of energy bills aways from a basis of how much you use (which seems pretty fair) to general taxation. Neither original not effective.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not splitting hairs, it's a fundamental question - so ATFQ

I'm worried about PW, I think you've managed to brainwash him somehow.

Nationalise 'food processors', wtf?

Japan's...of the state.
Would...supply?

Let's boils this down to the essentials. Your idea is to nationalise part of energy supply and reduce prices to consumers. As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall, all you will do is shift part of energy bills aways from a basis of how much you use (which seems pretty fair) to general taxation. Neither original not effective.

You said this bollox and you expect me to give you an answer?!:

"Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?"

What on earth do you mean when you say:

"As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall" What shortfall? You mean nationalised energy from fr*cking couldn't be run for profit?

team47b

pinarello001 wrote:

team47b wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I have obviously supplied the perfect solution as debate has ended.

New debate Energy is not the problem, consumption is.

That's you snookered Blakeney and the stereotype of poor people is after all, just a stereotype. You don't have to be a benefit claiming, fag smoking, alcohol drinking, Sun reading sky subscriber to be in financial difficulty.

@T47 = isn't consumption intrinsically linked to the acquisitive and the selfish hypnotised by the materialism on constant offer?

That's just an excuse, free thinking people don't behave like this, only the bewildered herd.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

You said this bollox and you expect me to give you an answer?!:

"Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?"

What on earth do you mean when you say:

"As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall" What shortfall? You mean nationalised energy from fr*cking couldn't be run for profit?

I know economics isn't your strong point so let me try to explain using short words :roll:

1. Re: the 'National food service' I asked you already the following question (since the point I was originally making with the 'national food service analagy went right over your head):
"Why not nationalise other important commercial and industrial sectors? Why just one part of the energy supply?"
It's a clear enough question but you dodged it. Go on, have a try...

2. You said above:
"If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change."
It's pretty obvious from that statement that what you plan to do is to lower energy prices from nationalised sources. To have a material impact you would need to drop the price significantly. So how will the State make a profit from its new energy business if it supplies energy at way below market rates? It won't, will it. So we the taxpayer pick up the tab. Comprendez?

(Edited for crap grammar)

rick_chasey

Take a look at the biggest companies by revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... by_revenue

Excluding #1 (Wall mart), every other company in the top 10 is an energy company (with Vitol being principally an energy trader, but nowadays behaves like a major anyway, owning refineries and the like).

Of the 67 companies listed as having an annual revenue above 100bn USD, a third are energy companies.

Energy is just in a different league when it comes to size and muscle power compared to any other industry.

RDW

http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dr ... aring.html