The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 11    Average: 3/5]
25 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 2231
Rating: 3
Category: Misc
Date: 03/11/14 08:04 AM

25 Responses to Don`t Squeeze The Last Gas

  1. Profile photo of jono142
    jono142 Male 18-29
    378 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 6:57 am
    Link: Don`t Squeeze The Last Gas - With fracking companies circling the British Isles, it`s now more important than ever to make a stand.
  2. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 8:17 am
    Stop it with this anti-fracking bunkum.

    Fracking is safe and effective. Just another thing for the eco-nazis to whine about.
  3. Profile photo of chicagojay
    chicagojay Male 40-49
    2018 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 8:26 am
    Hand wringing, chicken littles. Did you know that some of the funding for these "eco groups" comes from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries?
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 8:38 am

    You`d rather live without hot water, heat, indoor cooking? Go ahead, I want gas.
  5. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7596 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 8:48 am
    No fracking... we can have, and bloody well will have, renewables. we have no need to get the last bits out- we should stop using the stuff, oil too. Fossil fuels have had there day and to allow energy companies to ruin our planet to line their greedy little pockets. Cameron must be getting a fat wedge for allowing this.
  6. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3507 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 11:21 am
    Yes, Britain please stop trying to become energy independent, let us supply you with gas, coal, and oil. Then you can call yourselves green.
  7. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    @madduck The discovery and transition to fossil fuels saved the whales, Literally!
  8. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    Fossil fuels also made 99.9% of what we ALL use today possible. Without oil we`d be using printing presses instead of posting comments on the internet with our fossil fuel based plastic and silicon computers...
  9. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7596 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm
    that may be the case- it also proves bugger all. just because a technology pushed us forward and was of benefit does not mean it will always be advantageous. Cars stopped a huge amount of pollution when they caught on.. hot metal presses made newspapers far newsier...
  10. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    "just because a technology pushed us forward and was of benefit does not mean it will always be advantageous" Ahhh, yes it does UNTIL a better i.e. CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT, technology comes along.
    Renewables will come into their own when either: A. alternatives like solar and wind become less expensive than oil, or B. when we run out of oil. My guess is that it will be B.

    Yes oil companies have a TON of money. Don`t you think they would invest heavily in the "next" energy technology so they could still be making a TON of money. This is the most obvious proof that oil and coal are still vastly more cost effective than renewables.
  11. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7596 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm
    That would be renewables then `eh? We subsidise energy companies- lets put the subsidies to renewables. They work.
  12. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7046 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 1:56 pm
    I`m appalled at myself for getting a very slight frisson from the fact that most fracking is going to involve prosperous tory areas.

    Cameron`s crew have done a really good job at pissing off their rural grass-roots.

    When coal was king then if your region had coal it would be turned into a toxic desolation because it was a resource the country needed to make a few people insanely rich. Plus, the advantages of industrialisation.







  13. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3507 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 1:58 pm
    "Cars stopped a huge amount of pollution when they caught on."

    Are you talking about electric cars and hybrids? Because they give off most of the pollution during their manufacturing process. Because of this they are usually only compared with the top gas guzzlers as far the amount of pollution it gives off. They also have less durability and require more cars over time. Lastly, green cars are only green if the power plant they get their energy from is a green plant. The vast majority are coal plants meaning that the car is just moving it`s pollution to the coal plant.

    "That would be renewables then `eh? We subsidise energy companies- lets put the subsidies to renewables. They work."

    We shouldn`t subsidize any industry, fossil energy or green energy. If they work on their own they shouldn`t need to be subsidised.
  14. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm
    I`ve heard of a renewable that uses ocean waves and their natural rhythms as a source of energy. They`ve tried it in Cali and Florida. Britain could make a killing doing that...
  15. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7596 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 2:04 pm
    We have loads of options, even modern nuclear reactors are preferable. Not ideal- but we need to act fast and we have excellent renewables, but possibly the nimby attitude would rather a wind and wave farm than frakking. Notably the one to be put off Swanage had rich yachties whining but many, many locals for it- bet those rich arseholes would rather navigate further out than have frakking in their gardens. Renewables are perfectly workable, not expensive and are just not coming on line fast enough because of the vested interest in fossil fuels.
  16. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 6:14 pm
    Look at your economy, it`s dismal. All of our economies are dismal. You have no room to be picky. For energy, the only sensible option is "all of the above". Energy independence is very important for any country. Why would you put such punitive measures on your own economy at a time like this? You know who these Green policies hurt? The poor people you think you care about.

    Example. Europeans probably won`t put any real sanctions on Russia because they depend on Russia for gas.
  17. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 9:58 pm
    No fracking... we can have, and bloody well will have, renewables.

    No, we can`t. It`s not currently possible to power a grid off renewables at all, let alone with the huge increase in generation that would be required to replace ICEVs with EVs and gas heating with electric heating.

    It`s possible, at least on paper and if you don`t care about the environmental impact, to sometimes match peak requirements. That misleads some people into thinking it`s possible to power the grid from renewables, but they`re wrong. You need to match generation to demand all the time, every second of every day and every night. That is utterly impossible with renewables. It`s not even possible on paper. Can`t be done.

    I have referred to Iceland as an exception because of geothermal, but I was wrong even about that exception because geothermal isn`t really renewable.
  18. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 10:07 pm
    That would be renewables then `eh? We subsidise energy companies- lets put the subsidies to renewables. They work.

    We subsidise renewables heavily. We have to, even at the current small scale, because *they don`t work*.

    Of course, we subsidise them inefficiently and the cost gets added to our electrictity bills. That`s to be expected when politics trumps technology. We even pay the owners of renewables plants for *not* generating electricity!

    Without mass-scale electricity storage, renewables are a bad idea. They`re very expensive to build and to run and they destabilise the national grid, which means that fossil fuels have to be used in less efficient ways to maintain stability. That`s when we only use them for a small minority of generating capacity. If we go for more, we`ll have to pay France to keep our grid stable (if they`re willing to do it).
  19. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 10:18 pm
    I`ve heard of a renewable that uses ocean waves and their natural rhythms as a source of energy. They`ve tried it in Cali and Florida. Britain could make a killing doing that...

    Been trying that here since the 70s. There were some dubious dealings in the early days with nuclear being preferred and figures being wrongly reported, which stifled the early pioneering work by Salter. The cheapness of oil in the 80s killed it off.

    Wave power is back in serious development now. There are now some small-scale test facilities being built.

    There are two main problems:

    1) Nobody knows what the best design is. That puts people off investing big money in any design - it could be wasted.

    2) There`s too much power in the sea. It`s a challenge to find a design that will last long enough. Power stations have to be reliable and last long enough to spread the cost of building over a long enough period.
  20. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 10:20 pm
    And then there`s the same problem that exists with all renewables - it`s not controllable, so you can`t use it for a national grid. You need to be able to constantly match supply to demand and the waves don`t follow orders.
  21. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 10:32 pm
    Essentially, no existing technology is a long-term solution. We need a bridging solution until we have technology that`s a long term solution.

    For energy, the only sensible option is "all of the above".

    Yes, but with the extra criterion that the mixture is the most efficient one. Renewables for a bit, but not much. Fossil fuels and nuclear fission for the bulk of it, but we`ve dropped the ball on nuclear.

    We need to stretch things out until we get one of two things, preferably both;

    1) Mass-scale electricity storage. That would make renewables viable. Organic flow batteries might be able to do that.

    2) Practical nuclear fusion. That`s the big game-changer because it`s practically limitless. By the time our far descendents would be anywhere near running out, humanity would either be extinct or have technology we can barely imagine. Bigger, more efficient tokamaks might be able to do that.
  22. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 11, 2014 at 11:47 pm
    Ir you`re afraid of fracking...

    you just might be a hysterical liberal f***tard.
  23. Profile photo of RandomNoun
    RandomNoun Male 18-29
    707 posts
    March 12, 2014 at 10:33 am
    The planet`s ruined. We`re ruined. Let`s just scrub it out and start over.

Leave a Reply