Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darth Loo-knee]

Oh Dear... heads will roll

It will all end in tears 

[LJay]

The perpitrator of said upset has been delt with

I think he's got what he deserves.....he's a big meanie!

[I was TheBoy]

Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.

However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.

Bit of a sweeping statement?

I think they are ineffective, and go to extreme lengths/costs to achieve nothing.  Solar isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Like wind.  Or any other current renewables.  Yet cost a fortune to implement.  Working from the figures given by the manufacturers that I've retrieved from those who have it, it takes about 7yrs to make back the installation costs (based on the 43p payback per KWhr), and life of panels is given as approx 10yrs. And nobody I know is getting the estimated amount of electric they were promised.

It only makes any sense financially with this higher level payback, hence Friends of the Earth getting on their high horse.

OK, but it saves the planet.  But does it? Based on those using such systems not getting enough payback at 43p/kwh to even remotely cover their non solar electric use at about 15p/kwh, that means solar is covering way less than 1/4 (break even point at 43p/kwh) of electric use. As with electric cars, manufacturing costs (carbonwise) and short life, does it work out effective?  I think not.  Yet Friends of the Earth idiots will persue this at any cost, not based on using common sense, but a soap box "its green because we don't burn coal" ill considered attitude.

If its green electric at any cost, nuclear is probably the only viable answer currently, although it will take years to get new reactors online.  Japan's disaster has scared the do-gooders away, despite the fact that it should be considered a success story right up to the point when they discovered the brought in generators to recharge the batteries were incompatible.


Or tackle the real issue - the world is overpopulated. Unsustainably. Or is that too controversial?



Then we need to go back to a basic argument - is man substantially affecting climate.  It used to be "Global Warming", now even the beeb call it "Climate Change" instead.  There are lots of conflicting studies, which makes it unclear if mankind has affected climate.  Undoubtedly, parts of the Earth are warmer than 50yrs ago...  ...but Greenland was, errr, green back in the 12th century. Don't tell me, that was the Romans driving their Landrovers all over their empire that caused Artic icecaps to retreat.

Personally, I think I do fall into the category of "Mankind may have affected global climate, but not to the extent we are being scare-mongered into believing".  Green is expensive, good for businesses that invest in it.


So do I think 'home' solar is a (even small) answer? NO!

Do I think Friends of the Earth are idiots? YES!

[tigers_gonads]

I wish you would stop pishing about and say what you really think 

[I was TheBoy]

I wish you would stop pishing about and say what you really think 

I think the word censor would break....

...and as we currently have nobody who can fix it if it goes Pete Tong, maybe I shouldn't try...    ...or should I  //Evil cackle

[hoofing it]

Handbags at 10 paces

[Jimbob]

Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.

However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.

Bit of a sweeping statement?

I think they are ineffective, and go to extreme lengths/costs to achieve nothing.  Solar isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Like wind.  Or any other current renewables.  Yet cost a fortune to implement.  Working from the figures given by the manufacturers that I've retrieved from those who have it, it takes about 7yrs to make back the installation costs (based on the 43p payback per KWhr), and life of panels is given as approx 10yrs. And nobody I know is getting the estimated amount of electric they were promised.

It only makes any sense financially with this higher level payback, hence Friends of the Earth getting on their high horse.

OK, but it saves the planet.  But does it? Based on those using such systems not getting enough payback at 43p/kwh to even remotely cover their non solar electric use at about 15p/kwh, that means solar is covering way less than 1/4 (break even point at 43p/kwh) of electric use. As with electric cars, manufacturing costs (carbonwise) and short life, does it work out effective?  I think not.  Yet Friends of the Earth idiots will persue this at any cost, not based on using common sense, but a soap box "its green because we don't burn coal" ill considered attitude.

If its green electric at any cost, nuclear is probably the only viable answer currently, although it will take years to get new reactors online.  Japan's disaster has scared the do-gooders away, despite the fact that it should be considered a success story right up to the point when they discovered the brought in generators to recharge the batteries were incompatible.


Or tackle the real issue - the world is overpopulated. Unsustainably. Or is that too controversial?



Then we need to go back to a basic argument - is man substantially affecting climate.  It used to be "Global Warming", now even the beeb call it "Climate Change" instead.  There are lots of conflicting studies, which makes it unclear if mankind has affected climate.  Undoubtedly, parts of the Earth are warmer than 50yrs ago...  ...but Greenland was, errr, green back in the 12th century. Don't tell me, that was the Romans driving their Landrovers all over their empire that caused Artic icecaps to retreat.

Personally, I think I do fall into the category of "Mankind may have affected global climate, but not to the extent we are being scare-mongered into believing".  Green is expensive, good for businesses that invest in it.


So do I think 'home' solar is a (even small) answer? NO!

Do I think Friends of the Earth are idiots? YES!

Have you not learned your lesson?
Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated (especially when I still need revenge )

Bye Bye!

[LJay]

Oops. It seems my comments upset a couple of peeps. That wasn't my intention.

However, I maintain that if the rather pointless Friends of the Earth organisation really think it's worthwhile (it's not!), then they should fund the subsidies themselves. Rather than the beleaguered taxpayer. It is just frittering taxpayers money away for no environmental gain.

Bit of a sweeping statement?

I think they are ineffective, and go to extreme lengths/costs to achieve nothing.  Solar isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Like wind.  Or any other current renewables.  Yet cost a fortune to implement.  Working from the figures given by the manufacturers that I've retrieved from those who have it, it takes about 7yrs to make back the installation costs (based on the 43p payback per KWhr), and life of panels is given as approx 10yrs. And nobody I know is getting the estimated amount of electric they were promised.

It only makes any sense financially with this higher level payback, hence Friends of the Earth getting on their high horse.

OK, but it saves the planet.  But does it? Based on those using such systems not getting enough payback at 43p/kwh to even remotely cover their non solar electric use at about 15p/kwh, that means solar is covering way less than 1/4 (break even point at 43p/kwh) of electric use. As with electric cars, manufacturing costs (carbonwise) and short life, does it work out effective?  I think not.  Yet Friends of the Earth idiots will persue this at any cost, not based on using common sense, but a soap box "its green because we don't burn coal" ill considered attitude.

If its green electric at any cost, nuclear is probably the only viable answer currently, although it will take years to get new reactors online.  Japan's disaster has scared the do-gooders away, despite the fact that it should be considered a success story right up to the point when they discovered the brought in generators to recharge the batteries were incompatible.


Or tackle the real issue - the world is overpopulated. Unsustainably. Or is that too controversial?



Then we need to go back to a basic argument - is man substantially affecting climate.  It used to be "Global Warming", now even the beeb call it "Climate Change" instead.  There are lots of conflicting studies, which makes it unclear if mankind has affected climate.  Undoubtedly, parts of the Earth are warmer than 50yrs ago...  ...but Greenland was, errr, green back in the 12th century. Don't tell me, that was the Romans driving their Landrovers all over their empire that caused Artic icecaps to retreat.

Personally, I think I do fall into the category of "Mankind may have affected global climate, but not to the extent we are being scare-mongered into believing".  Green is expensive, good for businesses that invest in it.


So do I think 'home' solar is a (even small) answer? NO!

Do I think Friends of the Earth are idiots? YES!

Have you not learned your lesson?
Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated (especially when I still need revenge )

Bye Bye!

Poor TB suspect it'll take more than a nipple tweek.......

[Me]

I see Which are equally thick as 2 short planks over the Credit Card thing.  We're surrounded by useless do-gooder organisations, clearly made up of breakless, stupid, blinkered idiots.  I'm just the stupid kid from the local Comprehensive, but jeez....

[aaronjb]

You mean those 'rip off' surcharges that were just covering the clearing house fees for most small businesses, and will now simply be built into the price regardless of how you're paying? That Credit Card thing?

[Me]

You mean those 'rip off' surcharges that were just covering the clearing house fees for most small businesses, and will now simply be built into the price regardless of how you're paying? That Credit Card thing?

Precisely.

breakless rather idiots. 100 million sperm, and they were the fastest