Project ITER is already best funded scientific research project on the planet (ISS doesn't count, right?
). I agree though, it's a shame that there's no much resistance to nuclear power though.Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
Project ITER is already best funded scientific research project on the planet (ISS doesn't count, right?
). I agree though, it's a shame that there's no much resistance to nuclear power though.
Why is it unnecessary?
The state needs to intervene for the betterment of society and mankind. Somewhat more important than some selfish git not wanting to pay taxes because they don't understand how society works.
The subsidies are greater when accounting for production, per kwh.They also produce a hell of a lot less electricity than coal, nuclear and gas?
My main point was basing a whole argument on subsidies was silly...
I then went off on a tangent about renewable energy
Normalize subsides between all sources of energy an coal,nuclear and gas will shoot up in price, renewables will drop dramatically.
Using Dolph'5 year old level of reasoning, why should the state interfere so much with this nuclear research? It should stand on It's own 2 feet. Just like the railways they should fund it all themselves. If they can't make it commercially viable then it shouldn't exist. Why should I pay taxes on something that can't compete in the free market.Project ITER is already best funded scientific research project on the planet (ISS doesn't count, right?
I would hate to live in Dolphs ideal world.
Agree completely.
The state can manage the external costs via targeted and ring fenced taxation to address them without setting out specifically to alter behaviour.
Why would that be better?
Why shouldn't they alter people's behavior? Should we abolish the police, legal and prisons systems so we stop trying to alter people's undesirable behavior? Should we stop giving education on the consequences of unprotected sex, drug abuse, bad diet?
Why do you have such a problem with the government trying to make people healthier and society better when that is their entire purpose?
Renewables such as solar and wind hide behind wood, biomass and natural gas. They inflate the figures quite substantially. I am all for renewable energy but is it really that efficient to start running whole countries? The Germany example gets used a lot, it was one day in the middle of May, early afternoon. Don't get me wrong it's a start, but hardly peak demand time...
Came across this article recently; https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...or-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/
Now it can most probably be picked apart, like most things.
Think the argument just constantly goes back to one of storage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Subsidy does not make the country richer. Its a last resort for government to take over a company nevermind underpin an entire industry and its basis for continuing
I dont agree with subsidies for nuclear power either. If it isnt viable then we shouldnt be bending over backwards to do it. Why did we go through the whole coal miners strike issue, it wasnt the best direction for the country and theres no reasonable argument that we should force everyone to pay for industry that doesnt work.
We are currently making massive mistakes with the banking industry, propping it up is not productive or even going to prevent further problems in future. There is way too much interference and political influence, it weakens the UK and we are going to experience that.
The only exception I can think of is health care, mostly because people are the best investment a country can make and are exponential in their potential. Its still a dam mess but almost justifiable
The government should occupy itself with managing the protection and balancing of rights. That's where taxes and mitigation strategies are relevant to, for example, global warming. If the consequence of pricing in those external costs is that a solution is less attractive then so be it.
What the government should not do is randomly slap amounts on to one method and push the money into a general pot rather than using it for mitigation.
So tax to pay for maintaining and investing in roads, covering costs of road related accidents and environmental impacts, targeted and spent specifically on those purposes are fine. Tax to subsidise rail users is not, nor are taxes that massively outstrip mitigation spending, in my view.
You may have liked the reduction to absurdity, but it isn't a counter argument.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Unfortunately we're getting closer and closer to that reality.
We're not, there are no signs of universal income or other ideas tending towards equality under the law. What we have at the moment is a benefits class (which includes both workers and non workers, refer to them as net recipients if you prefer) who are given more money than they could ever earn based on their labour capability, and the rest of society left to fend for themselves while funding a lifestyle for the aforementioned benefits class that is often equivalent to, or better than those earning sufficient to be net contributors.
We have a lot of unnecessary state intervention with a lot of unintended consequences but pretend that all state spending is good and any cuts or changes must be evil.
We are far, far from my ideal, and not even heading in the right direction.
Germany believes so. China believes so too.
I said before, we need to be skating to where the puck is going. Energy independence might well be critical in the future, even ignoring the environmental benefits.
Africa certainly doesn't and that continent is experiencing a huge population increase, they will not slow their GDP growth because some hissy-fit westerners.
Literally any gain we make in going renewable will be entirely counteracted by Africa.
Literally any gain we make in going renewable will be entirely counteracted by Africa.
The idea that some other countries might not move to clean energy at the same pace as more developed ones, and so there is no point in investment in cleaner, cheaper energy and technologies that make city air safe is a bizarre viewpoint to be honest. Economies of scale can only make this easier, and if anything the lack of infrastructure in Africa makes smaller solar installations more attractive than a large coal plant hooked up to a grid.
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/08/20/developing-economies-need-power-from-coal/
They may very well also increase their usage of Solar/Wind/whatnot, but the vast majority of the power generation in developing nations will be coal. I'm not even sure we've felt the effects of China's emissions yet, let alone the rest of world not yet even out of energy poverty.
They may very well also increase their usage of Solar/Wind/whatnot, but the vast majority of the power generation in developing nations will be coal. I'm not even sure we've felt the effects of China's emissions yet, let alone the rest of world not yet even out of energy poverty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293
We're starting to see details of Labours 'fully costed' manifesto with nonsense like this now coming out.
Can someone explain to them that sticking a number against something doesn't mean it will actually happen?
We're starting to see details of Labours 'fully costed' manifesto with nonsense like this now coming out.
Can someone explain to them that sticking a number against something doesn't mean it will actually happen?
- Status