Who is in and who is out?

[dexter]

I'm in, considering where I live out would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I'd be interested to know how much revenue will be generated if the vote is for out when we all have to change our passports which at the moment have European Union at the top of the front cover. Perhaps it will be done for free but I doubt it! Still at least I'll be able to continue dreaming about choosing the winning numbers on euromillions!

 

[mind_the_goat]

Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).

Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?

 

[mind_the_goat]

That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?

I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.

 

[Jacob]

Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).

Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/0 ... esome-map/

According to this the EU and especially UK and Germany are slacking badly with respect to coal use reduction, but the climate is changing (in more ways than one)

OTOH this is interesting http://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-muc ... ectricity/

 

[DennisCA]

An interesting video on climate change and how many factors (including man!) work together and what might be coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

I like PBS spacetime for the understandable way it talks about physics in general. Very interesting channel.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).

Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?

Yes, to comply with this - http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm

and this - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 32001L0080

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... osing.html

 

[DTR]

Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?

I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.

I'm talking of scientific proof - there isn't any. It might be 100% obvious - but that doesn't make it proof. It would be far easier to do something about it if there were.

 

[DennisCA]

Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.

They also expell large amounts of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere, which are trace particles in coal.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.

If polluting power stations are to be closed (arguably a good thing) it would make sense to replace the capacity they offer before closing them, not later. The resulting shortfall in spare capacity could mean that demand exceeds available supply on occasions - we've been very close to that in the UK. Instead of replacing coal capacity with a generation method that delivers reliably all the time, we've had to comply with directives to install' renewable' capacity that isn't a reliable supplier (wind and solar). We also have to comply with directives on nuclear generation, which means we can't just make our own decisions on that.

The EU directives may be well-meaning, but collectively they tie us in so many knots, the UK ends up unable to take the decisions necessary to ensure energy security in the long term.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Climate change aside, it is well documented that the rates of respiratory illness are much increased in the areas surrounding coal-fired power stations. It is certainly in our interests to invest in less polluting alternatives.

Certainly. I read many years ago that if a man lived to be 57 years old there would have been more invented and discovered in his lifetime than in the whole of history before he was born. That figure must be lower now. This possibly tends to be forgotten in discussions like this. After the Chernobyl disaster people said we shouldn't use nuclear because it was so dangerous, but forgot that the Technology used there was thirty years old and had largely been superceded. Without wishing to go into a pro/anti nuclear argument, the point I was making is that anything developed today is going to be far, far superior to things done decades ago. There is to me a rather sensible suggestion that as coal power is largely not portable (where gas is) it would make sense to use coal first where possible. It would be nice to be able to go and buy for £19.99 a windmill for our garden that would supply all out needs - but it ain't going to happen.
As regards CC's point - If polluting power stations are to be closed (arguably a good thing) it would make sense to replace the capacity they offer before closing them, not later - I agree totally. One of the dangers is that things done in a hurry out of need tend not to be the best long term choices.

 

[Jacob]

That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?

I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.

I'm talking of scientific proof - there isn't any. It might be 100% obvious - but that doesn't make it proof. It would be far easier to do something about it if there were.

Science doesn't "prove" anything and doesn't claim to. It only theorises and amasses evidence. When there is enough evidence that is taken as "proof" but only until it is replaced or found faulty.
There is masses of evidence and theory about how and why climate change is due to human activity, and there is lots of scary evidence of it actually happening in various parts of the globe, and it will be happening here sooner or later.
Climate change sceptics are like creationists or flat earthers - you can't sensibly argue with people who simply deny any evidence. You can only point them at the info and suggest that they take their heads out of the sand.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Climate change sceptics? I've never met anyone who was skeptical about climate change. I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it. Twenty years ago we were heading for an ice age, and the Met Office can't forecast what will happen tomorrow.

 

[mind_the_goat]

Like closing down coal-fired stations (that actually generate quite a lot of electricity) and replacing them with wind farms (that frequently don't, and have to be heavily subsidised).

Sorry, What? Clearly missed something here, the EU are making us close coal fired power stations ?

Yes, to comply with this - http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm

and this - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 32001L0080

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... osing.html

Ok, thanks.
First, closing the most polluting (carbon and other by products) power plants is really a no brainier.
The first of those docs appears to be an attempt to coordinate efforts to meet our global obligations on greenhouse gasses,
this document is only a couple of years old and it's not clear to me it's in even effect yet.
The second one looks like a general 'reduce pollution' effort and again it's seems sensible to try and kill fewer people by reducing pollution.
Let's hope those regulations are not on the Leave campaigns secret list of regulations to drop, should they win.

 

[Jacob]

...... I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it. T....

They are the ones who need to do a bit of reading. If they really know better than the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, they should let them into the secret. Could be famous!

 

[mind_the_goat]

That's because there's this thing going on called "climate change" - which has been happening for billions of years. Of course we may exaggerate it - but there is not one iota of proof that we cause it. In any case all we do is close our industries down because of exorbitant energy costs then export the manufacturing to China - which hasn't exactly been top notch at controlling pollution, has it?

I had thought some of your points were valid but but if you believe this then then I really have to doubt the validity of everything else you've said.

I'm talking of scientific proof - there isn't any. It might be 100% obvious - but that doesn't make it proof. It would be far easier to do something about it if there were.

What Jacob said.
There is no proof, as in a mathematical proof but there is overwhelming evidence. If that level of evidence is not sufficient for you then I'm very surprised you are intending to vote leave.

 

[iNewbie]

...... I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it.


T....

They are the ones who need to do a bit of reading. If they really know better than the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, they should let them into the secret. Could be famous!

But you just said: Science doesn't "prove" anything and doesn't claim to. It only theorises and amasses evidence. When there is enough evidence that is taken as "proof" but only until it is replaced or found faulty.


Something faulty there, Basil. :mrgreen:

 

[Jacob]

...... I've met loads of people who are unconvinced that mankind is the total cause of it.


T....

They are the ones who need to do a bit of reading. If they really know better than the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject, they should let them into the secret. Could be famous!

But you just said: Science doesn't "prove" anything and doesn't claim to. It only theorises and amasses evidence. When there is enough evidence that is taken as "proof" but only until it is replaced or found faulty.


Something faulty there, Basil. :mrgreen:

The evidence is taken as "proof" in inverted commas - i.e. not "absolute truth" but the best we can come up with.
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

 

[stuartpaul]

This is clearly going to rumble on until June 23 It's been mostly friendly which is a good thing!

The EU clearly has a lot of work to do to and there are aspects of it's activity that are impossible to justify (e.g. decamping en mass to Strasbourg is inexcusable). Of course getting 28 countries to work together is difficult and not all are going to agree. I bet you couldn't get 28 individual woodworkers to agree on sharpening so what's been achieved up to now isn't all bad surely?

Have to say I've learned quite a lot by having to go and read (and try and understand!) an awful lot of stuff.

Let me give you two options:

Option A:

Leave vote wins. 24 June the £ will drop considerably as the financial markets hate uncertainty. The price of exports will drop and the price of imports will rise. The effects on all of us will be fairly immediate through a slow but inexorable rise in prices.

Prime Minster to be Johnson's face will be everywhere as he crows about how right he was. My television will be destroyed as a couple of bricks are launched at his buffoon like features.

The French will give a Gaelic shrug and walk away from 'the jungle' and the English will have to deal with a very difficult immigration situation.

Option B:

Remain vote wins. 24 June the £ will rise slightly as the markets will feel there is a degree of certainty. This means that the price of oil will drop as it's priced in $. We however will petrol prices rise as the greedy effing chancellor gets his sticky mits on more duty.

That **** Cameron's face will be everywhere as he crows on and on and on and on and on about how wonderful he is in leading us towards the promised land. My television will be destroyed as multiple bricks are launched at his grinning gob.

Outcome:

Win or loose I'm going to need a new television and be worse off financially. I'm still voting to remain though!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If we do leave, it would of course be honourable for the government to immediately call a general election. Four million people who voted last would probably vote differently this time - besides any other swings.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooowwww ... see that flying pig?