Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing
From: Brimstone on 6 Jul 2010 03:56
Environmentalists want people to use electric vehicles and yet they also
complain when new power stations are being proposed. Going by this report,
there isn't enough generating capacity to support a massive increase in the
use of electric vehicles and so new power stations will be needed in
addition to replacing those which are worn out and in need of replacement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7874065/Electric-cars-must-be-taxed-to-pay-for-more-power-stations-or-National-Grid-could-fail.html

Quote: "Analysts for Saturn Energy calculated that a fuel duty of up to 10p
a mile would be required to pay for the extra demand which will be created
if the Government's targets on renewable energy are hit.

The Climate Change Committee has said that 1.7 million electric cars should
be on Britain's roads by 2020. " End quote.

So which is it to be, more electric vehicles and more power stations; or,
carry on as we are?


From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2010 05:51
Brimstone wrote:
> Environmentalists want people to use electric vehicles and yet they also
> complain when new power stations are being proposed. Going by this
> report, there isn't enough generating capacity to support a massive
> increase in the use of electric vehicles and so new power stations will
> be needed in addition to replacing those which are worn out and in need
> of replacement.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7874065/Electric-cars-must-be-taxed-to-pay-for-more-power-stations-or-National-Grid-could-fail.html
>
>
> Quote: "Analysts for Saturn Energy calculated that a fuel duty of up to
> 10p a mile would be required to pay for the extra demand which will be
> created if the Government's targets on renewable energy are hit.

Why, I wonder?

Do they "think" that the electricity would be otherwise supplied free of charge?

> The Climate Change Committee has said that 1.7 million electric cars
> should be on Britain's roads by 2020. " End quote.
> So which is it to be, more electric vehicles and more power stations;
> or, carry on as we are?

We need more generating capacity anyway.
From: boltar2003 on 6 Jul 2010 06:09
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:51:28 +0100
JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
>We need more generating capacity anyway.

Well we can't have more coal - thats polluting.

We can't have more gas unless we want to join the warsaw pact.

We can't have more nuclear because it upsets baby boomers, hippies and other
clueless fuckwits.

We can't have more tidal because it affects the breeding marshes of the
lesser spotted snot gobbler (or something)

We can't have more wind because landed gentry and/or nimbies object to the
noise and spoilt views. Unless its a long way out at sea. Which costs a
fortune. And the wind doesn't always blow.

We can't have geothermal because we don't have any.

We can't have solar power because we normally don't get enough sun and there
wouldn't be enough space for the panels anyway.


Umm , that just leaves fat chavs on exercise bikes with a dynamo attached
powering the country and getting fit at the same time.

B2003

From: Adrian on 6 Jul 2010 06:18
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Umm , that just leaves fat chavs on exercise bikes with a dynamo
> attached powering the country and getting fit at the same time.

We've got plenty of those...
From: Man at B&Q on 6 Jul 2010 07:19
On Jul 6, 12:00 pm, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:09:33 +0000 (UTC), boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote:
> > We can't have more nuclear because it upsets baby boomers, hippies and other
> > clueless fuckwits.
>
> tell that to the leukemia clusters round sellafield

What should we tell the other leukemia clusters, that are not
associated with nuclear power plants?

MBQ
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing