|
CeeBee
|
 |
« on: January 24, 2012, 09:36:28 AM » |
|
Anyone hear Nigel Lawson vs. Tony Juniper on the Today Programme (Radio 4) this morning (not sure whether you can "Listen again" to the Today Programme).
Topic "Shale Gas". I paraphrase the speakers:
Juniper quite sensible - don't mind cheap gas as a stop-gap measure so long as it replaces e.g. coal and doesn't replace renewables (and renewables not built yet), and that carbon capture and storage is used, and that the environment is considered when extracting the gas.
Lawson - renewables are so expensive as to be pointless at present; results for 2011 due soon will show no climate change; let's charge headlong into the buffers burning up this cheap gas.
Me - sorry I've not done my research, but how long is this 'cheap shale gas' reckoned to last then? If we forget climate change; burn the stuff like there's no tomorrow; all continue increasing energy use as usual; then how long before catastrophe? Do we stand any chance at all with people like Lawson around?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 11:58:00 AM by CeeBee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martin
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2012, 10:05:08 AM » |
|
Not a lot! May as well chuck another polar bear cub on the fire and rev up the Hummer - sadly the odious Lawson and his ilk are being believed by the tabloid readers as it's easier not to face hard facts and actually do something to mitigate the damage...........  Was surprised the Juniper didn't emphasise the potential problems with fracking more .........  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 10:08:24 AM by martin »
|
Logged
|
Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk |
|
|
|
biff
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2012, 10:19:02 AM » |
|
EEEErrr Not that nice man who stuck the intrest rate up to 17.5 percent in the early 90s.Now you know your best intrests are being looked after  biff |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
desperate
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2012, 12:18:56 PM » |
|
Thing is Lawson makes a lot of noise, but not many who really matter are taking him seriously now. Hes reduced to touting around diet schemes and climate denial on the fringe of mainstream opinion. And who cares about the right wing tabloids any more?
Desp
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Crazy old duffer
|
|
|
|
martin
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2012, 01:05:31 PM » |
|
Sadly the BBC and ITV all too readily allow them to spout their poisonous tripe at any and every opportunity - recently the enormous new Thames array went online - what did we get on the news? - Benny Peiser (one of Lawson's cohorts) spouting on about how much of a waste of money it was!........ Add to that the Torygraph and Mail, you have a lot of influence on the thickets.........  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk |
|
|
|
Tigger
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2012, 01:14:06 PM » |
|
If Mr Lawson could persuade his delightful daughter to help promote the extraction of shale gas then maybe we'd look at the whole thing in a different light  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
30 tubes, south facing gable wall (Navitron Fornax Trial System). Hunter Herald 8, integrated boiler hooked up with Oil Boiler via Dunsley Neutraliser. Scrounging fire wood wherever possible  |
|
|
|
StBarnabas
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2012, 01:33:21 PM » |
|
My former neighbour Miranda went to school with Nigella and has a low opinion of her. Used to ponce around with flashy nails etc. (Miranda keeps bees and has featured on the forum before regarding her chicken expertise).
I think Lawson's opinions on AGW are worthless. He presumably is not stupid (well maybe he is) so it is a mystery to me why he should believe as he does. Sadly a lot of vested interest would like to believe AGW is either not happening or something to be welcomed, Caroline Spelman for example looks forward to growing Mediterranean type crops in England. The Torygraph and Mail already give these idiots enough of a platform without the BEEB giving them credence. Bring back the Flat Earth Society – their arguments were a lot more persuasive!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Gestis Censere. 40x47mm DHW with TDC3. 3kW ASHP, 9kW GSHP, 3kW Navitron PV with Platinum 3100S GTI, 6.5kW WBS, 5 chickens. FMY 2009. |
|
|
|
rt29781
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2012, 03:41:53 PM » |
|
He presumably is not stupid (well maybe he is) so it is a mystery to me why he should believe as he does.
I suspect he gets paid rather handsomely by said energy companies to spout such drivel. He is not stupid but he might not care about his fellow man. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
biff
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2012, 04:18:47 PM » |
|
He certainly dont care about his fellow man.Fat cats like lawson live off their fellow man.
biff
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
desperate
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2012, 07:20:21 PM » |
|
I see it as a good thing that the BEEB air the debate as they did this am, at least they have a representative from both sides of the argument unlike the Fail or Torygraph. People like Lawson who are going against the vast majority of scientific thinking can only expose themselves as the plonkers they really are in a debate like the one this morning. Most people believe in AGW, so if Lawson and co want to keep digging a hole for themselves that's fine, they are probably destroying their own credibility more effectively than many others could.
Desp
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Crazy old duffer
|
|
|
|
martin
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2012, 07:30:44 PM » |
|
was it me, or did Lawson sound absolutely plastered?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk |
|
|
|
StBarnabas
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2012, 07:39:08 PM » |
|
Desp
I do hope so. When the BNP leader Nick Griffin was invited on question time I thought it was a mistake. He however came across so badly that it was in fact rather a good idea in retrospect. He can hardly have gained many votes and came across as the complete bigot that he actually is. Lawson sadly is a bit more credible and there are many gullible people out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gestis Censere. 40x47mm DHW with TDC3. 3kW ASHP, 9kW GSHP, 3kW Navitron PV with Platinum 3100S GTI, 6.5kW WBS, 5 chickens. FMY 2009. |
|
|
|
Quakered
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2012, 12:12:06 PM » |
|
Me - sorry I've not done my research, but how long is this 'cheap shale gas' reckoned to last then? If we forget climate change; burn the stuff like there's no tomorrow; all continue increasing energy use as usual; then how long before catastrophe? Do we stand any chance at all with people like Lawson around?
Well the research would indicate that the world is awash with unexploited gas reserves and that the US could move to energy self sufficiency by 2016 to 2020. Gas is half as polluting as coal, gas powered stations are cheaper and more flexible and provide an ideal back to the variability wind and solar power. Global gas prices have also dropped dramatically since June of last year as production expands. Gas actually gives us a chance of meeting 2020 CO2 targets as well as reducing the number of people in fuel poverty. The UK (well England....) appears to have huge reserves as well those also reducing (eliminating?...) the need to import coal or gas. I suspect the wind industry is locked onto a high cost model as governments' clamour to increase renewal output. I suspect they would benefit from a little more financial pressure to reduce costs. As for how long the reserves will last, they are talking about 100 to 200 years...... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Patrick
No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford
|
|
|
|
rt29781
|
|
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2012, 12:28:33 PM » |
|
Gas actually gives us a chance of meeting 2020 CO2 targets as well as reducing the number of people in fuel poverty. The UK (well England....) appears to have huge reserves as well those also reducing (eliminating?...) the need to import coal or gas.
Not sure how burning methane to emit CO2 helps us reduce our CO2 target. That has to be spin. We have to stop using carbon based fuel to support business as usual. It is madness to burn more gas. We are already in deep bother and no amount of hoping is getting us out of it. We have to modify what we do or people will die in the storms that follow. We have no wriggle room left. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
desperate
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2012, 01:15:25 PM » |
|
Gas actually gives us a chance of meeting 2020 CO2 targets as well as reducing the number of people in fuel poverty.
That may be true by reducing coal consumption, but where do you go from there? We need to progressively reduce our emissions by 80% or more, and with all the "Frakernalia" in place that wont happen for a hundred or more years.
I would have more sympathy for it if the Frakkers were taxed and the revenue raised were ring fenced for real renewables.
But that wont happen in a million years
Desp
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Crazy old duffer
|
|
|
|
