Getting the wind up about turbines (From St Helens Star)

Quite agree -a blot on the landscape and noisy too. Perhaps they should consider putting in Brian Banawich's back garden in Rainford as he is our Green spokesman? I am sure the Greens of Rainford would approve as well?

Mr.Green Hulme,wanted to cover our green and pleasant land with these glorified windmill,s, but only to promote his own green credential,s within the liberal party.The fact that they don,t work when there is no wind,and we have to build convential gas turbines as back up is a mere inconvenient truth which add,s hundred,s to everybody,s energy bill,s and mean,s our industry cannot compete in the world market,s,and will close if this madness continues.
This winter hundred,s will die because they cannot afford the planned increases in energy charges,the company,s involved say they are simply passing on the government,s green agenda cost,s onto the consumer,s, and not off their already bloated profit,s,and of course apart from one these are all foreign owned,to me the only option is nuclear but Gordon Brown,sold the world leader British Nuclear for a few billion so now we are at the mercy of other,s.As i,ve said before this country is in terminal decline and we don,t have the time to pander to these green policy,s,even the liberal,s realise this now but dare not upset their rank and file,their conference will be interesting as they squirm on the hook of their own making,and head into oblivion at the next election,and what happened in St.Helens will be reflected across the nation,Nick Clegg won,t wield any power as he will lose his own seat,all i can say is god help us all.

Harry.

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Quite agree -a blot on the landscape and noisy too. Perhaps they should consider putting in Brian Banawich's back garden in Rainford as he is our Green spokesman? I am sure the Greens of Rainford would approve as well?

What an odd comment.Of Course I wouldn't oppose a wind turbine in 'my backyard' , that is why I am a member of The Greens after 27 years as a Labour activist. I simply had my fill of Labour's warm words on the environment and poverty .Words that were never matched by their actions. As a member of the Labour Party you are aware Ed Milliband called for the biggest exapansion of wind power ever seen back in 2009.And recently Labour's energy spokesperson Caroline Flint criticised the coaliton government's 40% reduction in wind power investment. My view on the issue is clear, it is the Labour Party who can't seem to get their act together on cimate change and green technology.

Harrybradbury wrote:
Mr.Green Hulme,wanted to cover our green and pleasant land with these glorified windmill,s, but only to promote his own green credential,s within the liberal party.The fact that they don,t work when there is no wind,and we have to build convential gas turbines as back up is a mere inconvenient truth which add,s hundred,s to everybody,s energy bill,s and mean,s our industry cannot compete in the world market,s,and will close if this madness continues.
This winter hundred,s will die because they cannot afford the planned increases in energy charges,the company,s involved say they are simply passing on the government,s green agenda cost,s onto the consumer,s, and not off their already bloated profit,s,and of course apart from one these are all foreign owned,to me the only option is nuclear but Gordon Brown,sold the world leader British Nuclear for a few billion so now we are at the mercy of other,s.As i,ve said before this country is in terminal decline and we don,t have the time to pander to these green policy,s,even the liberal,s realise this now but dare not upset their rank and file,their conference will be interesting as they squirm on the hook of their own making,and head into oblivion at the next election,and what happened in St.Helens will be reflected across the nation,Nick Clegg won,t wield any power as he will lose his own seat,all i can say is god help us all.

Harry.

Two factors are responsible for the UK's high fuels bills, the price of wholesale energy and the UK's over reliance on imported energy.Neither have anything to do with the 'green agenda'.Unsurprising
ly the UK is near rock bottom in the EU for renewable energy production.What happens when the oil and gas runs out will be anyone's guess, and the way things are going in the UK that will be a problem we drop in the laps of our grandchildren- while other european countries are already well on the way to ensuring their economies are totally 'oil-free'.

Brian Banawich wrote:

Harrybradbury wrote: Mr.Green Hulme,wanted to cover our green and pleasant land with these glorified windmill,s, but only to promote his own green credential,s within the liberal party.The fact that they don,t work when there is no wind,and we have to build convential gas turbines as back up is a mere inconvenient truth which add,s hundred,s to everybody,s energy bill,s and mean,s our industry cannot compete in the world market,s,and will close if this madness continues. This winter hundred,s will die because they cannot afford the planned increases in energy charges,the company,s involved say they are simply passing on the government,s green agenda cost,s onto the consumer,s, and not off their already bloated profit,s,and of course apart from one these are all foreign owned,to me the only option is nuclear but Gordon Brown,sold the world leader British Nuclear for a few billion so now we are at the mercy of other,s.As i,ve said before this country is in terminal decline and we don,t have the time to pander to these green policy,s,even the liberal,s realise this now but dare not upset their rank and file,their conference will be interesting as they squirm on the hook of their own making,and head into oblivion at the next election,and what happened in St.Helens will be reflected across the nation,Nick Clegg won,t wield any power as he will lose his own seat,all i can say is god help us all. Harry.

Two factors are responsible for the UK's high fuels bills, the price of wholesale energy and the UK's over reliance on imported energy.Neither have anything to do with the 'green agenda'.Unsurprising ly the UK is near rock bottom in the EU for renewable energy production.What happens when the oil and gas runs out will be anyone's guess, and the way things are going in the UK that will be a problem we drop in the laps of our grandchildren- while other european countries are already well on the way to ensuring their economies are totally 'oil-free'.

There is no doubt our fuel bills are going to rise year on year as we have to import more of our energy as north sea oil and gas runs out. What amazes me is as an island with the ability to utilise sea and wind power we seem to do neither.Or if we do either it is pure tokenism , even Cameron put a wind turbine on his roof to appear green but his policies are anything but. Green technologies are the new industrial revolution and the UK has already missed the boat on this one.We will be playing catch up for generations and being hit hard in the wallet to boot.

forget wind farms( cant store the energy produced and only work when its the right sort of wind) forget tidal barriers ( cant store energy) what we need is a relible source of energy that is there at the flick of a switch and this is nuclear,even the new generation of coal fired power stations that have carbon capture is far better than any green iniciative,we pay far more tax for green inicatives than any other country so why are we bottom of the leuge tables,scrap all green incentives and just give us cheap power that is what we need not some tree hugging policy.

The Greens speak "with forked tongue" especially Mr. Banawich.
The fact that Labour approves wind farms is irrelevant because I don't, but I will accept them at sea which still blot the sea-scape.
Wave and tide power as "green" as you would think? Not to the Greens as such barrages across the Severn or even the Morcambe Bay, (which would incidentally open up the Cumbrian coast), gets huge opposition from Greens as they would disturb some rare frog species and wildlife such as nesting migrant birds but still today I read of some Green spokesman opposing a London Airport in the Thames Estuary for similar reasons, massive wildlife nesting on those mud-flats, with a potential danger of bird-strikes if they did get the airport off the ground (or sea?) that is if the birds stayed around long enough. Therefore we get Stalemate on a third runway by the nimby's and the Greens both pushing their own agendas. So nothing gets done as well as Greens opposing HS2 which would solve the runway problem by fast links to "satelite" airports say Birmingham and Manchester. (also lots ot Tory marginals along the proposed route.They have kicked the project into the long grass aided and abetted by The Greens.)

The fact "carbon Capture" for coal fired power stations can be proven, the Greens won't allow such down in the S.E. as they dispute such, (and probably don't wish to be proved wrong) so they are apparently knowledgeable against those who do know what they are talking about and who understand the science. We are still sitting on 80% of coal reserves yet import the stuff from abroad.

Still perhaps Thatcher did people one favour by getting men out of unhealthy holes in the ground but still raised the spectre of Open Cast, a thing we know a lot about in Billinge. Massive reserves stretching from Newton Road down to Carr Mill Dam . If they ever got a foothold they would be here for centuries, indeed a massive "Blot on the landscape".

So energy prices continue to rise and shortages threaten as we dither about nuclear, yet another Green pet hate. So when we start to turn off the lights we will all know who to blame, The Greens whose only answer to all this is wind power.

Glad to see Brian has volunteered Rainford for such eyesores, just the thing to keep his neighbours awake all night. Also glad to see the residents of Kings Moss with some Colliers drinkers opposing. Hands off Billinge Hill.

Brain, which Euro Countries are "oil-free? The only country I am aware of the is not dependent is Cuba who moved after Russia pulled out to a "Transition low energy economy" which in the future when oil does run out we will have to adopt.

Agree with Bill Bradbury. Wind power is expensive tokenism by politicians to appease the green kranks. Nuclear, shale and clean coal are the only way forward. Anyone who thinks we will light and heat up this country with millions of expensive windmills is a sandwich sort of a picnic.

I also agree with Bill's point renewables are anything but green quite the very opposite in fact. This green nonsense is also driving many manufacturing businesses abroad just at a time when we need jobs as never before. Its total madness by a tiny number of kranks and should be stopped immediately while we still have an economy left.

Sankey wrote:
I also agree with Bill's point renewables are anything but green quite the very opposite in fact. This green nonsense is also driving many manufacturing businesses abroad just at a time when we need jobs as never before. Its total madness by a tiny number of kranks and should be stopped immediately while we still have an economy left.

It is rather odd that the 'green nonsense' is driving many businesses abroad when the UK has the most lax green regulations in the EU and is still wedded to a almost 100 percent fossil fuel economy. That simply doesn't make any sense. What will in time finish the UK off is we will be left behind in the new green economies which are a must.

Brian, Still waiting for the Euro country that has gone Green and is independent of fossil fuel.

Just returned from Oxford and a visit to the museum and a walk around the wall, a time-line from the pre cambrian, carboniferous, Jurassic and to the current geological era you would see we are still in the 3rd. Ice age with the ice caps melting, nothing to do with CO2 emissions, the biggest tax-con ever pulled on a population. Within the next 500-1000 years the Arctic Ice cap will have gone and probably most of the Antarctic. It's part of the Geological evolution and, although not to upset you all yet mankind at some time will just disappear to be replaced by whatever over another millions of years, if the sun by that time is still functioning and not super novared into some form of gas giant..
All this Green nonsence is just another band-wagon backed by pseudo gobbledegook.

Bill Bradbury wrote:
The Greens speak "with forked tongue" especially Mr. Banawich.
The fact that Labour approves wind farms is irrelevant because I don't, but I will accept them at sea which still blot the sea-scape.
Wave and tide power as "green" as you would think? Not to the Greens as such barrages across the Severn or even the Morcambe Bay, (which would incidentally open up the Cumbrian coast), gets huge opposition from Greens as they would disturb some rare frog species and wildlife such as nesting migrant birds but still today I read of some Green spokesman opposing a London Airport in the Thames Estuary for similar reasons, massive wildlife nesting on those mud-flats, with a potential danger of bird-strikes if they did get the airport off the ground (or sea?) that is if the birds stayed around long enough. Therefore we get Stalemate on a third runway by the nimby's and the Greens both pushing their own agendas. So nothing gets done as well as Greens opposing HS2 which would solve the runway problem by fast links to "satelite" airports say Birmingham and Manchester. (also lots ot Tory marginals along the proposed route.They have kicked the project into the long grass aided and abetted by The Greens.)

The fact "carbon Capture" for coal fired power stations can be proven, the Greens won't allow such down in the S.E. as they dispute such, (and probably don't wish to be proved wrong) so they are apparently knowledgeable against those who do know what they are talking about and who understand the science. We are still sitting on 80% of coal reserves yet import the stuff from abroad.

Still perhaps Thatcher did people one favour by getting men out of unhealthy holes in the ground but still raised the spectre of Open Cast, a thing we know a lot about in Billinge. Massive reserves stretching from Newton Road down to Carr Mill Dam . If they ever got a foothold they would be here for centuries, indeed a massive "Blot on the landscape".

So energy prices continue to rise and shortages threaten as we dither about nuclear, yet another Green pet hate. So when we start to turn off the lights we will all know who to blame, The Greens whose only answer to all this is wind power.

Glad to see Brian has volunteered Rainford for such eyesores, just the thing to keep his neighbours awake all night. Also glad to see the residents of Kings Moss with some Colliers drinkers opposing. Hands off Billinge Hill.

So, the lights will go out in non renewable energy UK and without the Greens having had a single year in government it will be the fault of a party with a single MP? I'm sure when you carefully consider your odd argument you will realise the fault will lie firmly at the parties of government who failed to act as the rest of the world emraced new technologies. The dithering, as you call it , is the result of the UKs failure to see beyond fossil fuels and imported energy , stangely for a country usually at the front of any industrial transformation we are being held back by a total lack of vision. The so called miracle cure of nuclear energy is anything but, there are currently 440 nuclear reactors around the world , the provide the future energy needs of the world there will need to be 11'000 in just 40 years time, if using just nuclear power.The only naturally occurring fissile substance, uranium-235, is in short supply, so to power all those reactors we will have to 'breed' new fissile material. That's 10 billion US dollars per reactor then the ongoing operating costs and the monumental cost of storing the waste- assuming we can store that amount of waste. All that means nuclear is the most expensive energy there is, by some distance. In short, anyone who thinks nuclear is the answer to our energy problems needs to do more research.

As for volunteering Rainford for any development.Perhaps you feel you speak on behalf of all the residents of Billinge.I speak for myself.

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Brain, which Euro Countries are "oil-free? The only country I am aware of the is not dependent is Cuba who moved after Russia pulled out to a "Transition low energy economy" which in the future when oil does run out we will have to adopt.

Sweden for one aims to be oil free in 2020, it now produces over 40% of it's energy needs from renewables.So to say it can't be done is a total nonsense because the oil is going to run out and it will have to be done.China has already committed itself to obtaining 15% of it's energy needs by 2020 as it sets in place a programme that will keep its economy running once the coal and gas run out. And I will just add, yet again, that leaves luddite Britain lagging behind in the renewable energy stakes, with the third lowest contribution of sustainable energy (at around 3 per cent) to overall energy consumption - the worst of any major EU country.So it does seem odd that people like yourself blame the UKs energy problems on the 'green agenda' when we clearly do not have a productive green agenda. A reasonable person might well assume the UKs problems are a direct result of our lack of a green agenda.

Brian Britain has the most lax green regulations in the EU, big swing! The EU is an economic corpse how are we compared to China, India, USA, Brazil and other emerging economies? The EU currently has negative some of those economies are experiencing 7% growth and beyond and those are the economies we will be trading with and competing with in the next 30 years not the moribund EU.

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Brian, Still waiting for the Euro country that has gone Green and is independent of fossil fuel.

Just returned from Oxford and a visit to the museum and a walk around the wall, a time-line from the pre cambrian, carboniferous, Jurassic and to the current geological era you would see we are still in the 3rd. Ice age with the ice caps melting, nothing to do with CO2 emissions, the biggest tax-con ever pulled on a population. Within the next 500-1000 years the Arctic Ice cap will have gone and probably most of the Antarctic. It's part of the Geological evolution and, although not to upset you all yet mankind at some time will just disappear to be replaced by whatever over another millions of years, if the sun by that time is still functioning and not super novared into some form of gas giant..
All this Green nonsence is just another band-wagon backed by pseudo gobbledegook.

You appear to be attempting to misrepresent my comment that many EU countries are well on the way to be oil free.Why are you unable to debate on the basis of what someone has said, rather than what you hoped they had said? Is your argument so weak?

As for man made climate change, the balance of available science says it is happening, when the available science says something else I will reconsider my opinion.

SWEDEN !!!!!!! you cannot compare the UK with Sweden ! Sweden has a population of 9 million in a big land mass and is a farming country with a smattering of industry. The UK has a population of 65m (officially but in reality 80m) in a tiny landmass and is a developed and industrialised country. If we listen to your like Brian we had better get used to candles, freezing to death and mass unemployment.

Many scientists don’t support the theory of manmade climate change it’s which study you choose to believe

Sankey wrote:
Brian Britain has the most lax green regulations in the EU, big swing! The EU is an economic corpse how are we compared to China, India, USA, Brazil and other emerging economies? The EU currently has negative some of those economies are experiencing 7% growth and beyond and those are the economies we will be trading with and competing with in the next 30 years not the moribund EU.

I'm not sure how this squares with your statement that the green agenda is making businesses leave the UK, it obviously isn't. We have no meaningful agenda, if we had we may not be in the mess we are with high energy bills and over dependency on imported fuel.And China, soon to be the world superpower, will produce 5 times the energy from renewables as the UK by 2015.Not because of a green agenda, because it will need to, and the proportion of energy it produces from renewables will continue to rise, because it needs to.It seems the UK has already given up that fight.

Brian Banawich wrote:

Sankey wrote:
Brian Britain has the most lax green regulations in the EU, big swing! The EU is an economic corpse how are we compared to China, India, USA, Brazil and other emerging economies? The EU currently has negative some of those economies are experiencing 7% growth and beyond and those are the economies we will be trading with and competing with in the next 30 years not the moribund EU.

I'm not sure how this squares with your statement that the green agenda is making businesses leave the UK, it obviously isn't. We have no meaningful agenda, if we had we may not be in the mess we are with high energy bills and over dependency on imported fuel.And China, soon to be the world superpower, will produce 5 times the energy from renewables as the UK by 2015.Not because of a green agenda, because it will need to, and the proportion of energy it produces from renewables will continue to rise, because it needs to.It seems the UK has already given up that fight.

Not answered my question Brian how is our green agenda compared to those economies? I think you will find they don't subscribe to your cult and will leave us in their wake. Coal, Nuclear, Shale thats the future with very limited wind and wave power to supplement where appropriate.

Rio Tinto Alcan aluminum smelter left the UK because of the green cranks even the left wing TUC spoke out against it. Real jobs lost because of a poxy cult against a threat that does not exist.

Sankey wrote:
SWEDEN !!!!!!! you cannot compare the UK with Sweden ! Sweden has a population of 9 million in a big land mass and is a farming country with a smattering of industry. The UK has a population of 65m (officially but in reality 80m) in a tiny landmass and is a developed and industrialised country. If we listen to your like Brian we had better get used to candles, freezing to death and mass unemployment.

In percentage terms you can compare any countries.If you want to dismiss Sweden then dismiss Latvia,Austria and Finland at over 30% and Portugal and Romania at 25% and a current EU average of 12% leaves us in the dunce's chair. More worryingly we have already admitted we will not meet our modest 2012 target of 15% , my suspicion is we probably won't get anywhere near 10% . But some people still think we are suffering from a 'green agenda' , strange.

Brian Banawich wrote:

Sankey wrote:
SWEDEN !!!!!!! you cannot compare the UK with Sweden ! Sweden has a population of 9 million in a big land mass and is a farming country with a smattering of industry. The UK has a population of 65m (officially but in reality 80m) in a tiny landmass and is a developed and industrialised country. If we listen to your like Brian we had better get used to candles, freezing to death and mass unemployment.

In percentage terms you can compare any countries.If you want to dismiss Sweden then dismiss Latvia,Austria and Finland at over 30% and Portugal and Romania at 25% and a current EU average of 12% leaves us in the dunce's chair. More worryingly we have already admitted we will not meet our modest 2012 target of 15% , my suspicion is we probably won't get anywhere near 10% . But some people still think we are suffering from a 'green agenda' , strange.

What are you talking about? you cannot equate the energy needs of a densely populated and industrialised country like britain with sweden percentages don't enter into it common sense does something no green has.

If we don't get near 10% thats great news. 1% sounds a more realistic target then or 0%.

Listen Brian if you want to be green thats fine go and live in a tent. But don't inflict your views on the rest of the population and don't sentance future generations to grinding poverty and energy shortages.

Sankey wrote:

Brian Banawich wrote:

Sankey wrote:
Brian Britain has the most lax green regulations in the EU, big swing! The EU is an economic corpse how are we compared to China, India, USA, Brazil and other emerging economies? The EU currently has negative some of those economies are experiencing 7% growth and beyond and those are the economies we will be trading with and competing with in the next 30 years not the moribund EU.

I'm not sure how this squares with your statement that the green agenda is making businesses leave the UK, it obviously isn't. We have no meaningful agenda, if we had we may not be in the mess we are with high energy bills and over dependency on imported fuel.And China, soon to be the world superpower, will produce 5 times the energy from renewables as the UK by 2015.Not because of a green agenda, because it will need to, and the proportion of energy it produces from renewables will continue to rise, because it needs to.It seems the UK has already given up that fight.

Not answered my question Brian how is our green agenda compared to those economies? I think you will find they don't subscribe to your cult and will leave us in their wake. Coal, Nuclear, Shale thats the future with very limited wind and wave power to supplement where appropriate.

I'm afraid I have answered your question.A) The UK has a very weak green agenda which they cannot meet B) China has a green agenda because it needs the energy to supply its mushrooming economy.China doesn't talk green but will have a much larger renewable energy sector than the UK As for Brazil, which you quoted, they have over 80%, yes 80% of their domestically produced electricity provided by renewable sources. The facts are out there.

Sankey wrote:
Listen Brian if you want to be green thats fine go and live in a tent. But don't inflict your views on the rest of the population and don't sentance future generations to grinding poverty and energy shortages.

Not much of an argument,now you are just being silly.Debate over, enjoyed it, cheerio all.

Sounds like a sore loser.

Brazil's renewables are hydro from the amazon rain forest which Brian you omiited to mention as per the normal green selective facts tactics. Last time I checked we don't have the river amazon running through britain. We have the mersey though maybe that will do? What utter poppycock these people speak.

Chuffing nora there are more dinosaurs in this thread than in Jurassic park . The only energy system that will be reliable long term is an intergrated energy system that allows expansion in one sector as resources dry up in another. To put all your eggs in one energy basket is asking for trouble .Coal, gas and oil are all finite resources and until clean nuclear energy arrives we shouldn't rely totally on nuclear.France, where I currently do most of my work , are looking to reduce its nuclear sector due to the massive cost of decommissioning its older reactors.No one idea is the answer , intergration is the only viable long term solution.

Sankey wrote:
Rio Tinto Alcan aluminum smelter left the UK because of the green cranks even the left wing TUC spoke out against it. Real jobs lost because of a poxy cult against a threat that does not exist.

Not quite the whole picture when it's French sites faced the same costs.
Alcan cited rising energy costs due to emerging European environmental legislation as the reason, however no mention was made of effects (if any) on their other European aluminium plants, in France and Iceland. Another reason given for closing Lynemouth is that it apparently does not meet Rio Tinto's criterion of 40% rate of return from its businesses, despite being one of the most efficient aluminium smelters in the world

Sankey wrote:
Brazil's renewables are hydro from the amazon rain forest which Brian you omiited to mention as per the normal green selective facts tactics. Last time I checked we don't have the river amazon running through britain. We have the mersey though maybe that will do? What utter poppycock these people speak.

I may not be up to date on these things but isn't the UK an island surrounded by water- tidal water at that?

Neill0 wrote:

Sankey wrote:
Brazil's renewables are hydro from the amazon rain forest which Brian you omiited to mention as per the normal green selective facts tactics. Last time I checked we don't have the river amazon running through britain. We have the mersey though maybe that will do? What utter poppycock these people speak.

I may not be up to date on these things but isn't the UK an island surrounded by water- tidal water at that?

Massive environmental damage to such as the severn barrage scheme. Plus nothing like the power of the Amazon. All countries make the best use of their resouces and we have nothing like that. Its a mix we need predominatly coal, nuclear, gas and shale with some renewables. Only a green zealot would believe we can power britain entirely by renewables. Incidently those who have a thing about nuclear power don't seem to have an objection about importing it at a premium from France which is dominated by nuclear.

Harrybradbury wrote:
Mr.Green Hulme,wanted to cover our green and pleasant land with these glorified windmill,s, but only to promote his own green credential,s within the liberal party.The fact that they don,t work when there is no wind,and we have to build convential gas turbines as back up is a mere inconvenient truth which add,s hundred,s to everybody,s energy bill,s and mean,s our industry cannot compete in the world market,s,and will close if this madness continues. This winter hundred,s will die because they cannot afford the planned increases in energy charges,the company,s involved say they are simply passing on the government,s green agenda cost,s onto the consumer,s, and not off their already bloated profit,s,and of course apart from one these are all foreign owned,to me the only option is nuclear but Gordon Brown,sold the world leader British Nuclear for a few billion so now we are at the mercy of other,s.As i,ve said before this country is in terminal decline and we don,t have the time to pander to these green policy,s,even the liberal,s realise this now but dare not upset their rank and file,their conference will be interesting as they squirm on the hook of their own making,and head into oblivion at the next election,and what happened in St.Helens will be reflected across the nation,Nick Clegg won,t wield any power as he will lose his own seat,all i can say is god help us all. Harry.

Germany has turned its back on nuclear power since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2002 and has seen no impact on its supply or energy prices.The reason the UK can't get a new nuclear programme up and running is none of the utility companies will invest due to the massive costs involved in decommissioning and storage of waste.Unless the government takes on board that cost and allows the energy companies to cream off all the profits with none of the losses involved? Could happen. .

Neill0 wrote:

Sankey wrote:
Rio Tinto Alcan aluminum smelter left the UK because of the green cranks even the left wing TUC spoke out against it. Real jobs lost because of a poxy cult against a threat that does not exist.

Not quite the whole picture when it's French sites faced the same costs.
Alcan cited rising energy costs due to emerging European environmental legislation as the reason, however no mention was made of effects (if any) on their other European aluminium plants, in France and Iceland. Another reason given for closing Lynemouth is that it apparently does not meet Rio Tinto's criterion of 40% rate of return from its businesses, despite being one of the most efficient aluminium smelters in the world

All of these situations have a number of variables which is why I get so annoyed by the greens selective facts. The fact is britain faces higher energy costs by domestically and industrially and many companies in future will relocate to where the energy costs are lowest. We cannot afford an energy policy based on a scenaro other en energy effciency. That means supply and cost not based on a silly cult.

The Japan disaster surely proved Nuclear is safe it was a 40 year old reactor and it held. I cannot speak for Germany. There is a high upfront cost with Nuclear as there is with renewables. But Nuclear could power our country irrespective of the weather no so with wind power. Unless we covered the entire country with them and even then only in the right sort of wind. High wind or no wind they don't work.

Sankey wrote:
Many scientists don’t support the theory of manmade climate change it’s which study you choose to believe

but most do.

Neill0 wrote:
Chuffing nora there are more dinosaurs in this thread than in Jurassic park . The only energy system that will be reliable long term is an intergrated energy system that allows expansion in one sector as resources dry up in another. To put all your eggs in one energy basket is asking for trouble .Coal, gas and oil are all finite resources and until clean nuclear energy arrives we shouldn't rely totally on nuclear.France, where I currently do most of my work , are looking to reduce its nuclear sector due to the massive cost of decommissioning its older reactors.No one idea is the answer , intergration is the only viable long term solution.

You needn't worry about the UK doing anything so drastic. I've been on transport systems in europe, they are cheap, efficent and clean.Our transport system is expensive, inefficent and dirty.The same goes for our energy systems .As Brtiain keeps on saying time and time again, we want nothing from europe. We know best and we will still know best when we are sat in the dark because we can no longer afford to import gas from Russia- while other EU countries keep the lights on.

Sankey wrote:
Listen Brian if you want to be green thats fine go and live in a tent. But don't inflict your views on the rest of the population and don't sentance future generations to grinding poverty and energy shortages.

isn't politics about differing views and offering a choice? Or do we all just stick to the same opinion? While I take issue with some green policies I can also see the other lot have had decades to get things right and keep getting things wrong.

Brian Banawich wrote:

Sankey wrote: SWEDEN !!!!!!! you cannot compare the UK with Sweden ! Sweden has a population of 9 million in a big land mass and is a farming country with a smattering of industry. The UK has a population of 65m (officially but in reality 80m) in a tiny landmass and is a developed and industrialised country. If we listen to your like Brian we had better get used to candles, freezing to death and mass unemployment.

In percentage terms you can compare any countries.If you want to dismiss Sweden then dismiss Latvia,Austria and Finland at over 30% and Portugal and Romania at 25% and a current EU average of 12% leaves us in the dunce's chair. More worryingly we have already admitted we will not meet our modest 2012 target of 15% , my suspicion is we probably won't get anywhere near 10% . But some people still think we are suffering from a 'green agenda' , strange.

I think the UK 'suffers' from a lot of politicians who talk green which gives the impression there is a green agenda there somewhere.As ever in politics the facts never match the rhetoric,not in Britain anyway.

Sankey wrote:
The Japan disaster surely proved Nuclear is safe it was a 40 year old reactor and it held. I cannot speak for Germany. There is a high upfront cost with Nuclear as there is with renewables. But Nuclear could power our country irrespective of the weather no so with wind power. Unless we covered the entire country with them and even then only in the right sort of wind. High wind or no wind they don't work.

I haven't yet heard anyone say the country should be covered in wind turbines (unless I have missed a comment) and they obviously do work otherwise they wouldn't be built.The question is do they produce enough power - obviously not on their own - but they are part of the solution as well as several other methods.I have no doubt we will one day have 100% renewable energy countries as the science advances , but we are not there yet. To dismiss it is ludicrous.

Brian Banawich wrote:

Sankey wrote: Listen Brian if you want to be green thats fine go and live in a tent. But don't inflict your views on the rest of the population and don't sentance future generations to grinding poverty and energy shortages.

Not much of an argument,now you are just being silly.Debate over, enjoyed it, cheerio all.

No, why don't you make your own shoes and use a bike as a generator would have been really silly. Enjoyed the input and debate.

I,ve read everyone,s comment,s but at the end of the day it,s very simple"No wind = no power".The only clean energy is nuclear,and you will find that Germany as not shut down it,s nuclear reactor,s, just a promise not to build anymore,as they have enough for their present need,s,they also have the Rhine river and other,s which can deliver hydro electricity in the future,and we don,t have river,s of that size fed by the mountain range,s as they do,i,m going to poundland to buy some battery,s,as if the green,s have their way i,ll need a torch.

Harry.

I can't get my head round Brian Banawich's scatter-gun approach. He writes of me misrepresenting him but note in his original letter he used the word "Totally" which he conveniently drops on decrying my points. Again which EU Country has "Totally" nor reying on oil?-- None to save you the waffle.
Last time I was in Sweden and some of the other countries he mentions oil and non renewables figured highly. He really need to latch on to the "transitional" debate on energy who put rational arguments on how to survive when the oil runs out, which it won't for at least 200 years or more if you disregard the Green Scare stories. There are whole untapped sources. Like I wrote only Cuba has adopted self sustainabilty forced on it after the Russians pulled out after the Cuban missile crisis and fortunately at the time their agricultural set up and having people who knew how to work bulls and hand guided ploughs took them over 10 years to become anywhere near self sufficient. All their towns and villages had to become self sustainable.
The problem with the Greens it is a religion which is never in error, fundamentalists-it's true because they say so.

Brian as you have read above there are many people on this site who can work it out for themselves without swallowing totally the Green agenda.

Yes Nuclear has its drawbacks but as sankey wrote even a 40 year old Japanses one held against all the odds, and lessons have been learned since Chernoble and 5? Mile Island about retainment. The answer to storing uranium is there but once again blocked by the Greens by scare stories, even when buried miles down in rock which has not moved or fractured in Millenia.

Neillo we don't have any more nuclear stations has nothing to do with firms not wishing to take it on but because Government won't provide the money and have to rely on the French to come up with solutions, yet another area of expertise we have flogged off to Europe. Our Politicians listen to stupid remarks made by the Greens so nobody does anything yet talk and wring hands when the lights go out. Their simple answer is to get the voters to pay more and more for their energy, buying in from anywhere but this country which has more than enough resurces.

The other points made above on population size and the differing resources of say Brazill are well made. If we had the Amazon flowing down the centre of Britain-problem solved!! Sankey has got it bang to rights in his comments.

Maybe we could use the Sankey Brook to light and heat Parr? Ok the Amazon is maybe a bigger river but its worth a try surely?

PM wrote:

Sankey wrote:
Many scientists don’t support the theory of manmade climate change it’s which study you choose to believe

but most do.

Because they get grants no sensible scientist who wanted a reseach budget would not support the mad global warming cult. And another thing most do? Really ? ok tell me how many do and how many don't PM?

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Brian, Still waiting for the Euro country that has gone Green and is independent of fossil fuel. Just returned from Oxford and a visit to the museum and a walk around the wall, a time-line from the pre cambrian, carboniferous, Jurassic and to the current geological era you would see we are still in the 3rd. Ice age with the ice caps melting, nothing to do with CO2 emissions, the biggest tax-con ever pulled on a population. Within the next 500-1000 years the Arctic Ice cap will have gone and probably most of the Antarctic. It's part of the Geological evolution and, although not to upset you all yet mankind at some time will just disappear to be replaced by whatever over another millions of years, if the sun by that time is still functioning and not super novared into some form of gas giant.. All this Green nonsence is just another band-wagon backed by pseudo gobbledegook.

The logic behind this argument is nonsense. To follow a theme because brush fires occur naturally it is not possible for a brush fire to be created by human activity..The fact is more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. That is, those with the data , those with the resources, the expertise do not dispute man made climate change is a fact. What are your credentials and where are your facts to dispute their extensive research? Your little walk around Oxford doesn't compare- sadly.

PM wrote:

Sankey wrote: Many scientists don’t support the theory of manmade climate change it’s which study you choose to believe

but most do.

No, the vast-overwhelming majority of those who have studied it support the assertion that man made climate change is a fact.

Harrybradbury wrote:
I,ve read everyone,s comment,s but at the end of the day it,s very simple"No wind = no power".The only clean energy is nuclear,and you will find that Germany as not shut down it,s nuclear reactor,s, just a promise not to build anymore,as they have enough for their present need,s,they also have the Rhine river and other,s which can deliver hydro electricity in the future,and we don,t have river,s of that size fed by the mountain range,s as they do,i,m going to poundland to buy some battery,s,as if the green,s have their way i,ll need a torch. Harry.

Germany has shut seven of its reactors and plans to close the other nine by 2020. No impact whatsoever on it's energy supply or price.

Bill Bradbury wrote:
I can't get my head round Brian Banawich's scatter-gun approach. He writes of me misrepresenting him but note in his original letter he used the word "Totally" which he conveniently drops on decrying my points. Again which EU Country has "Totally" nor reying on oil?-- None to save you the waffle. Last time I was in Sweden and some of the other countries he mentions oil and non renewables figured highly. He really need to latch on to the "transitional" debate on energy who put rational arguments on how to survive when the oil runs out, which it won't for at least 200 years or more if you disregard the Green Scare stories. There are whole untapped sources. Like I wrote only Cuba has adopted self sustainabilty forced on it after the Russians pulled out after the Cuban missile crisis and fortunately at the time their agricultural set up and having people who knew how to work bulls and hand guided ploughs took them over 10 years to become anywhere near self sufficient. All their towns and villages had to become self sustainable. The problem with the Greens it is a religion which is never in error, fundamentalists-it's true because they say so. Brian as you have read above there are many people on this site who can work it out for themselves without swallowing totally the Green agenda. Yes Nuclear has its drawbacks but as sankey wrote even a 40 year old Japanses one held against all the odds, and lessons have been learned since Chernoble and 5? Mile Island about retainment. The answer to storing uranium is there but once again blocked by the Greens by scare stories, even when buried miles down in rock which has not moved or fractured in Millenia. Neillo we don't have any more nuclear stations has nothing to do with firms not wishing to take it on but because Government won't provide the money and have to rely on the French to come up with solutions, yet another area of expertise we have flogged off to Europe. Our Politicians listen to stupid remarks made by the Greens so nobody does anything yet talk and wring hands when the lights go out. Their simple answer is to get the voters to pay more and more for their energy, buying in from anywhere but this country which has more than enough resurces. The other points made above on population size and the differing resources of say Brazill are well made. If we had the Amazon flowing down the centre of Britain-problem solved!! Sankey has got it bang to rights in his comments.

Having read the entire thread the quote in the comment (not letter) I saw read "while other european countries are already well on the way to ensuring their economies are totally 'oil-free'.” You then demanded to know which countries were totally oil free, that wasn't what was stated. Most EU countries are working towards having totally oil free economies due to the fact the oil is going to run out. They would be mad not to, although the UK doesn't seem to be working towards this.Draw your own conclusions as to why.

Speaking of Brazil it is now investing hugely in wind power due to drought.Yes, that's that wind power that doesn't work to the tune of six billion dollars for starters.I'm a little puzzled as to where your info about the UKs nuclear funding came from as it's common knowledge that EON and RWE pulled out of their plans to build nuclear power plants in the UK following earlier decisions by Scottish power and others.That leaves EDF but the new French government has already announced plans to scale back its nuclear sector so as it stands their is a huge question mark over the whole UK nuclear sector, private companies are unwilling to get involved and the UK government is unwilling to go down a road other countries are retreating from.

Sankey wrote:
Maybe we could use the Sankey Brook to light and heat Parr? Ok the Amazon is maybe a bigger river but its worth a try surely?

As stated several times the UK is an island with huge wave and tidal resources , the capability is there , what isn't there is the initial investment or the political will.

Sankey wrote:

PM wrote:

Sankey wrote: Many scientists don’t support the theory of manmade climate change it’s which study you choose to believe

but most do.

Because they get grants no sensible scientist who wanted a reseach budget would not support the mad global warming cult. And another thing most do? Really ? ok tell me how many do and how many don't PM?

Virtually all of them involved in the field along with every single governmental scientific body. While you may get a lone dissenting voice scientific consensus is reached when such overwhelming opinion prevails.If you can disprove the overwhelming scientific consensus is that man made climate change is happening I would be happy to see your sources and figures to back up your claim

PM wrote:

Neill0 wrote: Chuffing nora there are more dinosaurs in this thread than in Jurassic park . The only energy system that will be reliable long term is an intergrated energy system that allows expansion in one sector as resources dry up in another. To put all your eggs in one energy basket is asking for trouble .Coal, gas and oil are all finite resources and until clean nuclear energy arrives we shouldn't rely totally on nuclear.France, where I currently do most of my work , are looking to reduce its nuclear sector due to the massive cost of decommissioning its older reactors.No one idea is the answer , intergration is the only viable long term solution.

You needn't worry about the UK doing anything so drastic. I've been on transport systems in europe, they are cheap, efficent and clean.Our transport system is expensive, inefficent and dirty.The same goes for our energy systems .As Brtiain keeps on saying time and time again, we want nothing from europe. We know best and we will still know best when we are sat in the dark because we can no longer afford to import gas from Russia- while other EU countries keep the lights on.

I don't expect the UK to do anything drastic or forward thinking.That is one of the reasons I left and the reason the UK will always be sticking its oar into the middle east to keep the oil flowing.

Neillo "My little walk around the museum" is based on the evidence of my eyes how the planet's climate has changed many times over each geological age well before man started on this planet which in the geoligical time is less than a "dot" on the time-line.

It would be foolish to maintain that mankind's use of fossil fuels, burning trees, de-forrestration and general pollution has not affected the planet but seizing on CO2 emissions as the principle cause shows how many like you have fallen for the excuse to tax us and use price and availabilty to reduce our reliance on such fuels.

You are prepared to believe the "political constructs" backed by scientists who set out to prove a factor which is predictable that CO2 has an effect on climate but I maintain with others, mainly eminating from U.S. that the sun is the driving force behind climate change as is it's solar flares and intensity which fluctuates over time. Also the natural cooling and volcanic activity of the planet will also have some effect with each eruption putting up more damaging particles than the use of fossil fuels. I read some time ago the the ozone hole has suddenly been reduced,-- why? is anyone's guess. You may put that down to catalytic converters yet another use of valuable resources.

As I wrote intially the technology is there to reduce CO2 emissions but appears the Greens are not willing to see coal burnt in a safe way.

As to Nuclear, you are correct, the whole issue is a mess and nothing will be done until we start to see either the lights and heating going out or "the pips squeak" by us having to pay more. Also returning to my original point, before being diverted down this sterile argument, we have enough wave and tidal power to satisfy all our energy requirements but in using estuary powerful tidal flows the Greens object on the grounds of the destruction of flora & fauna. You can't win with a Green, if they say and believe it, it must be true and "it's in the papers"!!.
Myself and others prefer to make our own minds up and not be swayed by the current scientific fashion of the day. Before long another group of Scientists will find yet another "real" cause for global warning and I will examine that claim with caution.

You believe your fiction and I will believe mine and the evidence of my eyes.

If someone wants to erect a wind turbine in my backyard I will dig the hole for them.If someone wants to put a solar panel on my roof I will get out the ladder for them. And I hope the plans for the wind turbine go through and the luddite nimbys don't win through yet again.

BillMitch wrote:
If someone wants to erect a wind turbine in my backyard I will dig the hole for them.If someone wants to put a solar panel on my roof I will get out the ladder for them. And I hope the plans for the wind turbine go through and the luddite nimbys don't win through yet again.

Thank you for your contribution

PM there is a lot of scientists claiming man made global warming but they are normally funded by grants by vested interests. There are also a lot of scientists who oppose the theory. I have no idea what number on each side and it seems neither do you. But you can see from the responses on here man made global; warming is highly controversial and has no consensus in our society.

BillMitch wrote:
If someone wants to erect a wind turbine in my backyard I will dig the hole for them.If someone wants to put a solar panel on my roof I will get out the ladder for them. And I hope the plans for the wind turbine go through and the luddite nimbys don't win through yet again.

This is an empty gesture as it is most unlikely to happen, but perhaps your neighbours may have some objection? When do we start?
Also solar panels is the one "Green" thing I am in support but I am too old to get a return on my investment.

Sankey wrote:
PM there is a lot of scientists claiming man made global warming but they are normally funded by grants by vested interests. There are also a lot of scientists who oppose the theory. I have no idea what number on each side and it seems neither do you. But you can see from the responses on here man made global; warming is highly controversial and has no consensus in our society.

Google it and you will find the mass of scientific opinion believes man made global warming is a fact.It's pointless to ask ' how many' when you can't find a single independent or governmental scientific body to dispute the current scientific consensus.The science is against you , you know it, but you can't find any reputable source to back you up.You are, of course, fully entitled to dismiss the science and go on your own hunch and best guess.

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Neillo "My little walk around the museum" is based on the evidence of my eyes how the planet's climate has changed many times over each geological age well before man started on this planet which in the geoligical time is less than a "dot" on the time-line.

It would be foolish to maintain that mankind's use of fossil fuels, burning trees, de-forrestration and general pollution has not affected the planet but seizing on CO2 emissions as the principle cause shows how many like you have fallen for the excuse to tax us and use price and availabilty to reduce our reliance on such fuels.

You are prepared to believe the "political constructs" backed by scientists who set out to prove a factor which is predictable that CO2 has an effect on climate but I maintain with others, mainly eminating from U.S. that the sun is the driving force behind climate change as is it's solar flares and intensity which fluctuates over time. Also the natural cooling and volcanic activity of the planet will also have some effect with each eruption putting up more damaging particles than the use of fossil fuels. I read some time ago the the ozone hole has suddenly been reduced,-- why? is anyone's guess. You may put that down to catalytic converters yet another use of valuable resources.

As I wrote intially the technology is there to reduce CO2 emissions but appears the Greens are not willing to see coal burnt in a safe way.

As to Nuclear, you are correct, the whole issue is a mess and nothing will be done until we start to see either the lights and heating going out or "the pips squeak" by us having to pay more. Also returning to my original point, before being diverted down this sterile argument, we have enough wave and tidal power to satisfy all our energy requirements but in using estuary powerful tidal flows the Greens object on the grounds of the destruction of flora & fauna. You can't win with a Green, if they say and believe it, it must be true and "it's in the papers"!!.
Myself and others prefer to make our own minds up and not be swayed by the current scientific fashion of the day. Before long another group of Scientists will find yet another "real" cause for global warning and I will examine that claim with caution.

You believe your fiction and I will believe mine and the evidence of my eyes.

I believe in sciene, properly researched science by trained scientists who are experts in their field .In the same way I believe in going to a doctor if I'm ill.I put my faith in science.You are fully entitled to believe the evidence of your own untrained eye and ignore the scientific consensus.It took a while to convince the 'flat earthers' too, but we got there in the end.

Bill Bradbury wrote:

BillMitch wrote:
If someone wants to erect a wind turbine in my backyard I will dig the hole for them.If someone wants to put a solar panel on my roof I will get out the ladder for them. And I hope the plans for the wind turbine go through and the luddite nimbys don't win through yet again.

This is an empty gesture as it is most unlikely to happen, but perhaps your neighbours may have some objection? When do we start?
Also solar panels is the one "Green" thing I am in support but I am too old to get a return on my investment.

Then you would have no objection in having a nice retirement home built next door to one of the new breed of nuclear reactors we will need in the years ahead.They will be powered by the new breed of uranium which has not been fully tested but needs must , as uranium itself is in short supply.So I will live next door to a wind farm and you can live in the grounds of a new breed nuclear reactor, deal?

if we have such a bad green policy,why do we pay more green tax in this country than anywhere else???

Neill0 wrote:

Bill Bradbury wrote:

BillMitch wrote:
If someone wants to erect a wind turbine in my backyard I will dig the hole for them.If someone wants to put a solar panel on my roof I will get out the ladder for them. And I hope the plans for the wind turbine go through and the luddite nimbys don't win through yet again.

This is an empty gesture as it is most unlikely to happen, but perhaps your neighbours may have some objection? When do we start?
Also solar panels is the one "Green" thing I am in support but I am too old to get a return on my investment.

Then you would have no objection in having a nice retirement home built next door to one of the new breed of nuclear reactors we will need in the years ahead.They will be powered by the new breed of uranium which has not been fully tested but needs must , as uranium itself is in short supply.So I will live next door to a wind farm and you can live in the grounds of a new breed nuclear reactor, deal?

LOL what climate change sceptic nuclear fan could refuse such a generous offer?

papyt wrote:
if we have such a bad green policy,why do we pay more green tax in this country than anywhere else???

Because we don't get the benefits of lower tax renewables because we have virtually no renewable energy systems to speak of. You are paying more green taxes because we DON'T have a sizeable green sector, not because we have one.Pretty obvious if you spew out more carbon you pay more carbon taxes, the answer- strikingly simple- is to use more renewables. British politicians are not that bright though.

Neill0 I never believed the earth was flat especially living in Billinge!