green party election broadcast

jawooga

Just seen the green party broadcast.

thought it was quite funny and hit the "they're all the same note quite nicely"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg

mr_goo

An interesting way to spend your party funds. Quite amusing and very near the truth. Not sure why they have included UKIP in the video as they are just as marginal as the Greens.

Problem with the Greens for me:
1. They love wind turbines. I hate them and am one of many tens of thousands trying to stop Navitus Bay going ahead.
2. They put a global warming aspect to every policy.

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

As a PP broadcast really thought it was pathetic to be honest.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

Problem with the Greens for me:
1. They love wind turbines. I hate them and am one of many tens of thousands trying to stop Navitus Bay going ahead.

Why?

NIMBY?

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Problem with the Greens for me:
1. They love wind turbines. I hate them and am one of many tens of thousands trying to stop Navitus Bay going ahead.

Why?

NIMBY?

You drive back down through west devon into cornwall and dotted around the country side are these huge tall turbines, calibrated down to 500kw from their designed 800kw,so the farmer gets a bigger subsidy and after their life time of 20 years? the farmer is responsible for its disposal.... anyone knows what they ll do? let them fall down, just like they do with dis used chicken sheds, farmers down here call it the wild west bonansa .... for them.

i m not against whole scale wind farms, but just odd ones popping up across the land is a disgraceful waste of time and public funds.

pinno

Don't worry mamba. The whole of the South will soon be covered in creaky nodding Donkey's soon with the stench of crude oil permeating everything.

jawooga

xdoc wrote:

As a PP broadcast really thought it was pathetic to be honest.

I wouldn't disagree with that! I suppose they have to do something to stand out, but it doesn't really cast them as a party you'd want in government.

RDW

<Conspiracy theory>The Tories are secretly funding the Greens to split the left-wing vote</Conspiracy theory>

iron-clover

I'm sure the greens mean well, but are far too extreme for me. I like the nuclear industry (might even work as part of it one day) which they would shut down, defense would be mashed so my current job would probably fall through and then you look at their policies on large companies. From what I've seen of their aims is they want to abolish big business and replace it with backyard 'environmentally friendly' enterprise instead. Kinda brings medieval/ post apocalyptic civilization to mind really.

Oh, and they back the animal rights groups which include lots of nutters who would love to see my beloved pet reptiles dead (and any other captive animal for that matter) which means I have to oppose them by default regardless of the above.

And they are probably the most likely to carry out their intentions of the lot of them as they believe they are acting in 'the greater good', which makes them the scariest of all of them.

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Problem with the Greens for me:
1. They love wind turbines. I hate them and am one of many tens of thousands trying to stop Navitus Bay going ahead.

Why?

NIMBY?

Wind Turbines are at the very best run at 28-30% efficiency. Ergo that means they do nothing in the way of energy generation for over two thirds of the year. And all the while the energy companies that erected them are collecting Billions in subsidies. Wind Turbines are for Peak Load and not used for Base Load electricity generation as it is not a guaranteed/constant power (clearly), hence why the National Grid has to use nuclear or fossil fuels.

REF/; Navitus Bay. This is nothing short of industrialisation of the UKs only Natural World Heritage site, namely the Jurassic Coast. One needs to visit the area to appreciate the coastline, the views, the area etc etc. And EDF/Eneco want to erect 200 turbines at 657 feet high, that's over 60 ft higher than the Gherkin in London.

If they were proposing to build these huge lagoons with tidal turbines as in Cardiff I would have no problem. One can forecast for the next 50/100 years the energy that will be generated. Guaranteed energy which you can then calculate into the required Base Load.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Problem with the Greens for me:
1. They love wind turbines. I hate them and am one of many tens of thousands trying to stop Navitus Bay going ahead.

Why?

NIMBY?

Wind Turbines are at the very best run at 28-30% efficiency. Ergo that means they do nothing in the way of energy generation for over two thirds of the year. And all the while the energy companies that erected them are collecting Billions in subsidies. Wind Turbines are for Peak Load and not used for Base Load electricity generation as it is not a guaranteed/constant power (clearly), hence why the National Grid has to use nuclear or fossil fuels.

REF/; Navitus Bay. This is nothing short of industrialisation of the UKs only Natural World Heritage site, namely the Jurassic Coast. One needs to visit the area to appreciate the coastline, the views, the area etc etc. And EDF/Eneco want to erect 200 turbines at 657 feet high, that's over 60 ft higher than the Gherkin in London.

If they were proposing to build these huge lagoons with tidal turbines as in Cardiff I would have no problem. One can forecast for the next 50/100 years the energy that will be generated. Guaranteed energy which you can then calculate into the required Base Load.

When you say efficiency what do you mean? I see a turbine that all you need to do maintain and it'll generate power as a pretty good thing, and pretty 'efficient'.

If it is peak power stuff (which i am a bit sceptical of) why is that a bad thing? Surely the more wind energy we are turning into electricity, the better right? The Netherlands are building a system whereby the entire train system will be run off wind generated power by 2018, and are on target to meet 14% of the entire nation's energy needs generated by wind.

I can't see how that's a bad thing?

You argument for energy companies getting subsidies as a reason not to build them, that's very silly. They're unrelated. So what if they get a subsidy for it? If you don't like the subsidy, complain about the subsidy - don't try to obstruct work to move to renewable energy sources.

They need to be put somewhere.


Deep down I think you're looking for excuses to not have them near where you are, because the reasons you're giving me are basically saying 'they're not as good as they could be', rather than a reason why they shouldn't be there at all.

You like the tidal answer because you don't have to look at it.

I think you just need to man up and realise the bigger picture.

desweller

Mr Goo wrote:

Wind Turbines are at the very best run at 28-30% efficiency.

What does that figure mean?

I understood wind turbines to have a conversion efficiency that runs at somewhere between 30 and 45%, depending on operating conditions. Of course, the fuel source is handily placed several million miles away, so no drilling holes in the ground to drive it once it's been built.

Coal plants typically run at around 30%.

Nuclear plants can run at a thermal efficiency of 35 to 40%, but most of the heat generated by the fuel is thrown away before turning water to steam as the thermal generation rate is so high.

pinno

We still have not found a safe method of the disposal of radio active waste.

Plutonium is going to be in very short supply by 2050.

South West Scotland has amongst the highest clusters of Multiple Sclerosis and breast cancer rates per capita in Western Europe. Nothing to do with Selafield?

Anyway, we are looking at energy all wrong. We should be concentrating on reducing consumption either by habit and or technology.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

Anyway, we are looking at energy all wrong. We should be concentrating on reducing consumption either by habit and or technology.

Very true.
But that won't sell as a manifesto.
You try telling people to stop using their cars, ovens, fridges/freezers, computers, or God forbid their TVs and mobile phones........

iron-clover

pinarello001 wrote:

Plutonium is going to be in very short supply by 2050.

South West Scotland has amongst the highest clusters of Multiple Sclerosis and breast cancer rates per capita in Western Europe. Nothing to do with Selafield?

Plutonium is made as a by product of nuclear fission using uranium which has not been completely enriched, as found in power stations, which is partially why processing of spent fuel is so important. Plutonium itself is not found in nature due to its relatively (compared to the age of the earth) half life. Processing nuclear fuel would increase the amount of time nuclear power stations can operate. I also wonder how much material is available from nuclear warheads which could be broken up and used as fuel.

Hopefully that will be enough time for nuclear fusion to come online as that would provide a vast supply of relatively clean energy. Unfortunately the technical challenges are immense and the in joke is that a commercial plant is always 50 years away...

The sellafield fallout was pretty negligible tbh, and I doubt you would link breast cancer and MS rates to it tbh- bearing in mind the general state of health in that area there are probably a myriad of other issues.

I don't think reduced energy consumption will be possible- electrical appliances are far more efficient than their predecessors and they are still getting better, but with more gadgets and more people the overall demand is increased and very difficult to reduce.

Instead I would concentrate on stop gap renewables including the often overlooked tidal/ wave power, as well as efficient gas, nuclear and the continuing development of fusion.
Capitalism pretty much takes care of increased efficiency by itself- more efficient devices are also cheaper to run...

pblakeney

iron-clover wrote:

Instead I would concentrate on stop gap renewables including the often overlooked tidal/ wave power, as well as efficient gas, nuclear and the continuing development of fusion.
Capitalism pretty much takes care of increased efficiency by itself- more efficient devices are also cheaper to run...

Everyone (especially those in the industry) is waiting on the efficiency to cost ratio making wave power viable.
Tidal power is viable but overcoming practical issues and NIMBYs is the main obstacle.

desweller

Great so instead of baking ourselves to death by greenhouse effect, now we're gonna do Chicxulub II and crash the moon into the earth.