FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Vattenfall
Vattenfall
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Well well well. As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. "The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates. The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable." " Full disclosure - I don't know the details of this, but it's a bit counter intuitive to imagine that a free and renewable energy source can't be profitable. I image what's meant is that the costing isn't viable given the wholesale cost of energy. But that's just accounting not technology. A government has considerations beyond cost - security of supply, environmental impact, air quality etc. | |||
"Well well well. As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. "The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates. The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable." Full disclosure - I don't know the details of this, but it's a bit counter intuitive to imagine that a free and renewable energy source can't be profitable. I image what's meant is that the costing isn't viable given the wholesale cost of energy. But that's just accounting not technology. A government has considerations beyond cost - security of supply, environmental impact, air quality etc." Essentially when contracts to build windfarma are handed out you put in a bid. That bid is accepted by the government on what you say will be your cost to supply the energy. Originally they said they could supply it for £35 a mw( I thinknits mw) Which is where the headlines of cheap renewables come from. However they are now saying thatbsupply at £35 is no feasible because the cost of the hardware and materials has gone up so drastically. I shared an article thatbdeacribed how the main suppliers of the materials and goods for windfarms had gone up and that even though electricity is said to cos £xx pound if its wind based. This was only the advertised cost of the bid. Bids aren't always taken up( as the above bid bow looks cancelled) When I described this process and shared a person deep workings into the cost factors. I was told I didn't understand the energy sector and that I was promoting a Tufton street stooge( with no links to Tufton street) | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly." If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. | |||
| |||
| |||
"This is always going to be the reality of renewables in this country and why we should be focused on what is actually viable and what is fantasy nice to haves. Nuclear is the way forward and we need to be getting on with it rather than throwing time and money down the drain on solar and wind. " I agree to an extent. However, surely there is something in tidal? I believe the UK has the highest tidal surge in Europe? Surely that can be exploited? | |||
"I agree to an extent. However, surely there is something in tidal? I believe the UK has the highest tidal surge in Europe? Surely that can be exploited?" Tidal will never work at scale. It's possible to build some functional plants in some geographically special places, but not enough to provide a useful amount of power. The sea is incredibly destructive, and the green energy sector is littered with the remains of projects that thought they could tame it. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. " I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. | |||
"Well well well. As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. "The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates. The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable." " Is it something specific to this project that causes it to be unviable now or are the other wind farm projects also likely to become unviable? I assume it's recent inflation causing the problem, if correct will that not affect all form of energy generation roughly equally | |||
"I agree to an extent. However, surely there is something in tidal? I believe the UK has the highest tidal surge in Europe? Surely that can be exploited? Tidal will never work at scale. It's possible to build some functional plants in some geographically special places, but not enough to provide a useful amount of power. The sea is incredibly destructive, and the green energy sector is littered with the remains of projects that thought they could tame it." Oh I do not doubt it but get the egg heads on it as surely that is untapped “free” energy to be had? | |||
"Well well well. As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. "The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates. The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable." Is it something specific to this project that causes it to be unviable now or are the other wind farm projects also likely to become unviable? I assume it's recent inflation causing the problem, if correct will that not affect all form of energy generation roughly equally" All other windfarm projects. Many are bid on but never actually taken up. This cost( as per the article I shared) is across the entire sector. The costs of putting the actual turbines has increased by 40% in 2 years. Making them completely unbiable at the bid cost. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. " I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!  | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit! "As per the thread on source vs data. I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing) There were several links. The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes. But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic. Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
"I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific. You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong! NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects."In fairness, our way is right and yours is wrong can regularly be seen from both sides. We see it very often here. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
In fairness, our way is right and yours is wrong can regularly be seen from both sides. We see it very often here. "Absolutely agree. Tribalism. Binary. Black & White. Victory must be achieved. Compromise and grey areas ignored. Also (not arguing) but just the language used, as per your post, exemplifies this, “can regularly be seen from both sides” - “both sides!!!” There should be multiple sides and viewpoints! The world is dumbing down! Nuance is dead! | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
In fairness, our way is right and yours is wrong can regularly be seen from both sides. We see it very often here.
Absolutely agree. Tribalism. Binary. Black & White. Victory must be achieved. Compromise and grey areas ignored.
Also (not arguing) but just the language used, as per your post, exemplifies this, “can regularly be seen from both sides” - “both sides!!!” There should be multiple sides and viewpoints! The world is dumbing down! Nuance is dead!"Indeed, both sides. The reason I didn't say all sides is because we also see centrists (right and left) who can see multiple viewpoints and don't try to shut down other by telling them they're wrong. You and I go head to head often but also agree often, theres a few others too. My own political compass says I'm centre-left but I often argue with lefties because they can't see the wood for the trees. | |||
| |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
In fairness, our way is right and yours is wrong can regularly be seen from both sides. We see it very often here.
Absolutely agree. Tribalism. Binary. Black & White. Victory must be achieved. Compromise and grey areas ignored.
Also (not arguing) but just the language used, as per your post, exemplifies this, “can regularly be seen from both sides” - “both sides!!!” There should be multiple sides and viewpoints! The world is dumbing down! Nuance is dead!
Indeed, both sides.
The reason I didn't say all sides is because we also see centrists (right and left) who can see multiple viewpoints and don't try to shut down other by telling them they're wrong.
You and I go head to head often but also agree often, theres a few others too. My own political compass says I'm centre-left but I often argue with lefties because they can't see the wood for the trees."And you snd I both are guilty of sometimes playing devil’s advocate and also arguing for the sake if it. I don’t even disagree with everything coming out of Tufton St. I am sure SOME of it is quite right and I sympathise with some of the points. But I do not trust the agenda (and do have issues with the linkages to evangelical Christians). In my 40+ years one thing I know to be certain... there is your side (of the argument), there is my side, and there is the truth somewhere in the middle. | |||
  | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
In fairness, our way is right and yours is wrong can regularly be seen from both sides. We see it very often here.
Absolutely agree. Tribalism. Binary. Black & White. Victory must be achieved. Compromise and grey areas ignored.
Also (not arguing) but just the language used, as per your post, exemplifies this, “can regularly be seen from both sides” - “both sides!!!” There should be multiple sides and viewpoints! The world is dumbing down! Nuance is dead!
Indeed, both sides.
The reason I didn't say all sides is because we also see centrists (right and left) who can see multiple viewpoints and don't try to shut down other by telling them they're wrong.
You and I go head to head often but also agree often, theres a few others too. My own political compass says I'm centre-left but I often argue with lefties because they can't see the wood for the trees.
And you snd I both are guilty of sometimes playing devil’s advocate and also arguing for the sake if it.
I don’t even disagree with everything coming out of Tufton St. I am sure SOME of it is quite right and I sympathise with some of the points. But I do not trust the agenda (and do have issues with the linkages to evangelical Christians).
In my 40+ years one thing I know to be certain... there is your side (of the argument), there is my side, and there is the truth somewhere in the middle."Oh I'm definitely guilty of being a prick at times, even I won't argue against that one. Speaking of source vs data, I've already staked my position on that, for me the data is way more important than the source. There are no ev'ANGEL'icals here, we're all deviants 
You are correct in that there's always 3 sides to a story/debate  | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
In fairness, our way is right and yours is wrong can regularly be seen from both sides. We see it very often here.
Absolutely agree. Tribalism. Binary. Black & White. Victory must be achieved. Compromise and grey areas ignored.
Also (not arguing) but just the language used, as per your post, exemplifies this, “can regularly be seen from both sides” - “both sides!!!” There should be multiple sides and viewpoints! The world is dumbing down! Nuance is dead!
Indeed, both sides.
The reason I didn't say all sides is because we also see centrists (right and left) who can see multiple viewpoints and don't try to shut down other by telling them they're wrong.
You and I go head to head often but also agree often, theres a few others too. My own political compass says I'm centre-left but I often argue with lefties because they can't see the wood for the trees.
And you snd I both are guilty of sometimes playing devil’s advocate and also arguing for the sake if it.
I don’t even disagree with everything coming out of Tufton St. I am sure SOME of it is quite right and I sympathise with some of the points. But I do not trust the agenda (and do have issues with the linkages to evangelical Christians).
In my 40+ years one thing I know to be certain... there is your side (of the argument), there is my side, and there is the truth somewhere in the middle.
Oh I'm definitely guilty of being a prick at times, even I won't argue against that one.
Speaking of source vs data, I've already staked my position on that, for me the data is way more important than the source. There are no ev'ANGEL'icals here, we're all deviants
You are correct in that there's always 3 sides to a story/debate "I can be a prick too. Sometimes too tempting to wind people up. People taking an inarguable position can be a red rag! | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects."I have my understandings...my interrogation of data. Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources. People can share same.views without being shills. I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc. Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links. I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points. See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court. Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
"“was yuK”?? Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach. I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing. It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong). The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty. At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best."My default position of some people on here is that they are liars. Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me. I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material. I dont just attack the source itself. I have in 2 recent times corrected myself. Because I am an adult. I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text. I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried. This is what adults do. I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims. It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones. I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
"Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time. However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time.
However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way."Then I suggest those people read the links they quote and interrogate the data. If they can't handle being shown that a headline doesn't match the actual data because newspaper have an audience to appeal to. Then maybe discussion and debate isn't for them. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time.
However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Then I suggest those people read the links they quote and interrogate the data.
If they can't handle being shown that a headline doesn't match the actual data because newspaper have an audience to appeal to. Then maybe discussion and debate isn't for them." self awareness ain’t your thing is it Morely! | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time.
However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Then I suggest those people read the links they quote and interrogate the data.
If they can't handle being shown that a headline doesn't match the actual data because newspaper have an audience to appeal to. Then maybe discussion and debate isn't for them.
self awareness ain’t your thing is it Morely!"Facts don't care about feelings. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time.
However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Then I suggest those people read the links they quote and interrogate the data.
If they can't handle being shown that a headline doesn't match the actual data because newspaper have an audience to appeal to. Then maybe discussion and debate isn't for them.
self awareness ain’t your thing is it Morely!
Facts don't care about feelings."But people care about how they are spoken to. It’s just common decency, especially when it is possible you know more on a topic than the other poster. | |||
"Well well well. As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. "The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates. The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable." Full disclosure - I don't know the details of this, but it's a bit counter intuitive to imagine that a free and renewable energy source can't be profitable. I image what's meant is that the costing isn't viable given the wholesale cost of energy. But that's just accounting not technology. A government has considerations beyond cost - security of supply, environmental impact, air quality etc. Essentially when contracts to build windfarma are handed out you put in a bid. That bid is accepted by the government on what you say will be your cost to supply the energy. Originally they said they could supply it for £35 a mw( I thinknits mw) Which is where the headlines of cheap renewables come from. However they are now saying thatbsupply at £35 is no feasible because the cost of the hardware and materials has gone up so drastically. I shared an article thatbdeacribed how the main suppliers of the materials and goods for windfarms had gone up and that even though electricity is said to cos £xx pound if its wind based. This was only the advertised cost of the bid. Bids aren't always taken up( as the above bid bow looks cancelled) When I described this process and shared a person deep workings into the cost factors. I was told I didn't understand the energy sector and that I was promoting a Tufton street stooge( with no links to Tufton street)" Yes, but this is another example of market failure - they bid at that price they should deliver at that price, why are they being let off the hook ? What are the consequences for the company ? Risk seems to lie with the bill payers here …. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time.
However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Then I suggest those people read the links they quote and interrogate the data.
If they can't handle being shown that a headline doesn't match the actual data because newspaper have an audience to appeal to. Then maybe discussion and debate isn't for them.
self awareness ain’t your thing is it Morely!
Facts don't care about feelings.
But people care about how they are spoken to. It’s just common decency, especially when it is possible you know more on a topic than the other poster. "I stopped giving a shit how I spoke to people when it beca e clear no one had a problem with fabtastic making lies a d putting condescending thumbs up. When no 1 apologised and admitted they ere wrong when claims were made thatbthey couldn't back up. When people told me I had no clue what i was talking about then instead of admitting they were wrong changed the narrative of the discussion. You want to be spoken to like an adult. Act like 1. | |||
"Well well well. As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. "The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates. The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable." Full disclosure - I don't know the details of this, but it's a bit counter intuitive to imagine that a free and renewable energy source can't be profitable. I image what's meant is that the costing isn't viable given the wholesale cost of energy. But that's just accounting not technology. A government has considerations beyond cost - security of supply, environmental impact, air quality etc. Essentially when contracts to build windfarma are handed out you put in a bid. That bid is accepted by the government on what you say will be your cost to supply the energy. Originally they said they could supply it for £35 a mw( I thinknits mw) Which is where the headlines of cheap renewables come from. However they are now saying thatbsupply at £35 is no feasible because the cost of the hardware and materials has gone up so drastically. I shared an article thatbdeacribed how the main suppliers of the materials and goods for windfarms had gone up and that even though electricity is said to cos £xx pound if its wind based. This was only the advertised cost of the bid. Bids aren't always taken up( as the above bid bow looks cancelled) When I described this process and shared a person deep workings into the cost factors. I was told I didn't understand the energy sector and that I was promoting a Tufton street stooge( with no links to Tufton street) Yes, but this is another example of market failure - they bid at that price they should deliver at that price, why are they being let off the hook ? What are the consequences for the company ? Risk seems to lie with the bill payers here …." They never reaver to provide the service. If 30 bids are input for up to 10 winfarms. They have x amount of years to begin contruction. There's noc out to them of not beginning that construction. The uk tax payer suffers because the windfsrm is never built. And thus energy provision doesn't match expectation and we rely on other Co tribution e.g gas, interconnectors, coal. | |||
"As I described at the time. And posted a link to the increased costs of green and capital investments and the bidding process. I was told I didn't k now what I was talking about, and I was quoting Tufton street shills Those shills called it correctly. If I recall correctly you were saying all green investment wasn’t viable, not one specific example? Surely there will always be some projects that are less viable then others? Have you seen the scale of what China has been doing in this space (despite an ongoing narrative they aren’t addressing climate change challenges)? I think the issue is that we need a more grown up debate that stops being do binary and partisan. It needs to recognise a gradual shift that is achievable and accepts a mixed economy for the foreseeable. I was told that greene nervy is cheaper than gas. I asked for the backing data of this and none was provided. I provided data on costs of green energy, subsidies etc and the price of gas. I provided a multiple sources breaking down the numerical data and got told. " blah blah Tufton street" and " you don't know about the energy sector" Part of the points that were addressed were the ones I made about how bidding worked and the increasing costs of the capital requirements to make the windfarms. I am not knowledgeable enough to even begin to properly understand let alone challenge anyone regarding “energy” green fossil or otherwise. I have an opinion but so does everyone. Regarding Tufton St, you DO repeat the narratives that come out of there as do your go to sources - there appears to be little balance or counter argument coming from you. Because of that it simply appears you are pushing the same agenda. And they DO have an agenda. And that agenda IS driven by their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry and that industry DOES have an agenda! While I totally acknowledge that there are lobby groups operating across the whole political spectrum, what I find distasteful about those associated with Tufton St is their secrecy and opaque nature. It feels quite insidious. PLUS their ties with far right evangelical Christian* groups in America (which clearly ties back into the Farage/UKIP mini manifesto discussion we were having). I am not discounting everything that orgs associated with Tufton St say, but I do view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism. Which is why I challenge you on some areas because I never see balance, only ever a viewpoint of argument that aligns with the Tufton St narrative. *P.S. I am also a little bit dumfounded to see people on here (not necessarily you) ever being supportive of an evangelical Christian agenda. ie anti gay, anti abortion, and most relevant, anti extra-marital sex! This is a swinger site. The whole point of it is to find partners to have sex with, including group sex, bi/gay sex, and certainly extra-marital! I cannot square that in my mind one bit!
As per the thread on source vs data.
I prefer to challenge the data ( or in some cases legal standing)
There were several links.
The author of the debunking of green gave links to multiple GOVERNMENT sites for the data and processes.
But it was too easy to say " Tufton street" even though there was no links to the author being paid or being a shill. Just merely being a green energy skeptic.
Well. The chick's came home to roost. And he was right.cthese project wants be picked up and certainly not at initial bid costs or without further subsidisation.
I have to wonder what your motives are sometimes. I post an explanation on the general issue regarding Tufton St and your sources and yourself posting material supporting their narrative. You ignore the general point and once again focus on a specific.
You go (again) straight to “links to the author being paid or being a shill” even though I did not say that. I said “influenced” or possibly “heavily influenced”. There is no balance in what they or your other sources (or you) post. It is binary. Black & White. Our way is right your way is wrong!
NOTHING in life is binary. There is always grey areas. I suspect some green energy schemes are unviable, some are viable, and the status of some changes depending on wider issues beyond their control. Much like some fossil fuel projects.
I have my understandings...my interrogation of data.
Some one posting about Tufton street doesn't alter the data sources.
People can share same.views without being shills.
I dont accuse people on here of being George sorts grifters etc.
Inask for their data and links and then go read it myself and form rebuttals( I often enjoy funfellas and easy for their links) indotn criticise any guardian, bylines links.
I then read the take and then refute any claims with data or legal points.
See where I quoted the brazaga case on farage. Whereas was yuk for an unknown reason quoted the usa supreme court.
Instead of questions the author refute the claim with data or factual caselaw.
“was yuK”??
Yes except you have never admitted another data source contradicts yours and then brings it into question. Your default position comes across as I am right you are all wrong (and some of you are thick and/liars! For some on here it is less what you post and more how you post. Too many arguments seem to coalesce around you and your posts and that tends to be your condescending approach.
I am certain that a more measured approach to how you post, and an acceptance that yours is not the only opinion that matters, would see more discussion and less arguing.
It is undeniable that your views align with Tufton St as do all your sources. You unyielding support of Liz Truss underlines that (she is one of theirs and was their crowning achievement until it all went wrong).
The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty.
At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best.
My default position of some people on here is that they are liars.
Sadly their constant claims and then citing of sources that don't say what they claim has pushed them into that category for me.
I actually click on their sources and then discuss their material.
I dont just attack the source itself.
I have in 2 recent times corrected myself.
Because I am an adult.
I was completely wrong on passport and fingerprints having been stupid enough to believe a Europa.ec source and not click into the legal text.
I also corrected myself on the matter of particulates not co2 when queried.
This is what adults do.
I'm not bothered about sources of data or claims.
It can be from the byline times, guardian, Owen Jones.
I'll still interrogate the headline, backing information source and claim. I won't dismiss it out of hand.
Generally maybe you do. I’m not watching thst closely or reviewing the data myself to see if you came to the right conclusions because...frankly I don’t have the time.
However, as I said, it is less what you say but how you say it. It clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Then I suggest those people read the links they quote and interrogate the data.
If they can't handle being shown that a headline doesn't match the actual data because newspaper have an audience to appeal to. Then maybe discussion and debate isn't for them.
self awareness ain’t your thing is it Morely!
Facts don't care about feelings.
But people care about how they are spoken to. It’s just common decency, especially when it is possible you know more on a topic than the other poster.
I stopped giving a shit how I spoke to people when it beca e clear no one had a problem with fabtastic making lies a d putting condescending thumbs up.
When no 1 apologised and admitted they ere wrong when claims were made thatbthey couldn't back up.
When people told me I had no clue what i was talking about then instead of admitting they were wrong changed the narrative of the discussion.
You want to be spoken to like an adult. Act like 1."Except when people have apologised you have not been magnanimous about it and accepted the apology. Instead you tend to gloat or even on at least one time refuse to even acknowledge. This has been commented on privately by people who one might normally think of as supporters. Anyhow, you clearly cannot see the way you come across and how it is that style that tends to illicit either aggressive responses or ridicule. | |||
"This is always going to be the reality of renewables in this country and why we should be focused on what is actually viable and what is fantasy nice to haves. Nuclear is the way forward and we need to be getting on with it rather than throwing time and money down the drain on solar and wind. " | |||
"Irony post Nuclear is not viable unless it gets a massive subsidy Hinckley getting subsidy of £92 MW over 30 years Offshore wind current subsidies £39!MW over 15 years Don’t tell me nuclear is cheap This is always going to be the reality of renewables in this country and why we should be focused on what is actually viable and what is fantasy nice to haves. Nuclear is the way forward and we need to be getting on with it rather than throwing time and money down the drain on solar and wind. " Nobody said it was cheap, you had that conversation on your own, so I wont tell you nuclear is cheap, as I wont tell you it is a more reliable source of energy. But you knew that already didn't you? | |||
"Irony post Nuclear is not viable unless it gets a massive subsidy Hinckley getting subsidy of £92 MW over 30 years Offshore wind current subsidies £39!MW over 15 years Don’t tell me nuclear is cheap This is always going to be the reality of renewables in this country and why we should be focused on what is actually viable and what is fantasy nice to haves. Nuclear is the way forward and we need to be getting on with it rather than throwing time and money down the drain on solar and wind. Nobody said it was cheap, you had that conversation on your own, so I wont tell you nuclear is cheap, as I wont tell you it is a more reliable source of energy. But you knew that already didn't you? " Interestingly (to me) China’s total capacity of all its new reactors under development, is as big as the rest of the world’s combined, at around 250 GW. In 2021, 19 new reactors were under construction, 43 awaiting permits, and another 166 were planned! | |||
"Irony post Nuclear is not viable unless it gets a massive subsidy Hinckley getting subsidy of £92 MW over 30 years Offshore wind current subsidies £39!MW over 15 years Don’t tell me nuclear is cheap This is always going to be the reality of renewables in this country and why we should be focused on what is actually viable and what is fantasy nice to haves. Nuclear is the way forward and we need to be getting on with it rather than throwing time and money down the drain on solar and wind. " Erm I think you need to re look at the figures. | |||
| |||
