By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 14:39 - Aug 12 by monytowbray
Or no one gives complete control to venture capitalists like the existing energy corps who prioritise profit over safety.
Or no natural disasters happen near them at a time when we'll be seeing more natural disasters from climate change.
The reason nuclear power never really took off is purely safety, not to mention when it does go wrong the consequences are huge. It's quicker to run across speeding traffic on a busy M25 than it is to locate/walk over a footbridge, but chances are you'll take the footbridge.
I'm not very up on such matters, but given we're surrounded by water and wind with bags of energy, I'd prefer to concentrate on that. Seems wiser In terms of energy security as well as climate change -(doesn't the fuel nuclear reactors use come from elsewhere?)
I remember reading about huge sausage shaped things that Harness wave energy from the sea, plus tidal too. You would think there's be lots of jobs and business in this sort of approach too.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 14:39 - Aug 12 by monytowbray
Or no one gives complete control to venture capitalists like the existing energy corps who prioritise profit over safety.
Or no natural disasters happen near them at a time when we'll be seeing more natural disasters from climate change.
The reason nuclear power never really took off is purely safety, not to mention when it does go wrong the consequences are huge. It's quicker to run across speeding traffic on a busy M25 than it is to locate/walk over a footbridge, but chances are you'll take the footbridge.
Nuclear didn’t fail to take off in the UK because of safety (otherwise we’d have none). It was that the high start up cost leading to a higher price per unit than burning gas. That decision is now looking extremely short-sighted.
0
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 14:56 - Aug 12 with 1056 views
i expect if starmer promised he would cut the power bills by half , they would be posters saying its bull and wheres the money coming from. i think corbyn was called out that he can't produce a money tree for all his promises. when a windfall tax was said to be a money tree , people were told that can't be done just get the power companies to off set the power bill rises by using some of their profits to lower them. not the government giving mine and yours money back as a help
forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows
0
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 16:05 - Aug 12 with 1031 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 14:49 - Aug 12 by giant_stow
I'm not very up on such matters, but given we're surrounded by water and wind with bags of energy, I'd prefer to concentrate on that. Seems wiser In terms of energy security as well as climate change -(doesn't the fuel nuclear reactors use come from elsewhere?)
I remember reading about huge sausage shaped things that Harness wave energy from the sea, plus tidal too. You would think there's be lots of jobs and business in this sort of approach too.
Glad to see you've got all your favourite Town players in your dictionary as proper nouns Ulla!
There are costs to nationalising. The decision in France to increase bills by 4% incurred a cost of £7b to EDF. EDF debts are projected to rise to £51b this year. Now a French taxpayer liability.
I' not against it, but there are big costs involved.
0
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:01 - Aug 12 with 979 views
If this is it, I agree, but it looks like there are more policy announcements next week:
"The announcement is the first strand of what the party has promised will be a “fuller package” on the energy crisis that Reeves has been working on with Keir Starmer and that will be rolled out in the coming days."
I agree he needs to pull his finger out regarding this.
Truss' comments on the matter are a disgrace, Labour need to put them under some pressure ASAP.
EDIT:
Hadn't seen the numerous other comments stating the above.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 16:51 - Aug 12 by brazil1982
There are costs to nationalising. The decision in France to increase bills by 4% incurred a cost of £7b to EDF. EDF debts are projected to rise to £51b this year. Now a French taxpayer liability.
I' not against it, but there are big costs involved.
The French taxpayer has also just taken control of 360bn EUR of assets owned by EDF. It's not really fair to just highlight the liabilities.
Given the French national debt of 2975bn EUR, 51bn EUR extra in order to take full control of their largest energy supplier seems fairly reasonable.
They are big costs as you say however the context is important.
SB
0
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:20 - Aug 12 with 955 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:05 - Aug 12 by StokieBlue
The French taxpayer has also just taken control of 360bn EUR of assets owned by EDF. It's not really fair to just highlight the liabilities.
Given the French national debt of 2975bn EUR, 51bn EUR extra in order to take full control of their largest energy supplier seems fairly reasonable.
They are big costs as you say however the context is important.
SB
Essentially seizing privately owned companies are whatever price the government thinks is fair is hardly going to go down well with international investors.
Proper banana republic stuff, you'll have your assets back but you'll never get inward investment again.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:20 - Aug 12 by GlasgowBlue
Essentially seizing privately owned companies are whatever price the government thinks is fair is hardly going to go down well with international investors.
Proper banana republic stuff, you'll have your assets back but you'll never get inward investment again.
One is allowed to have nuanced opinions, especially when there is a huge issue with energy costs which is going to prove impossible for many people.
Not sure why you go round every thread either mentioning JC or the SNP or looking up previous comments from people especially when you get rather upset when other posters do that to you.
In the case of EDF, they are actually paying a 53% premium above the close price when the offer was made so your point is both incorrect and childish.
Well done.
SB
[Post edited 12 Aug 2022 17:26]
4
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:30 - Aug 12 with 940 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:25 - Aug 12 by StokieBlue
One is allowed to have nuanced opinions, especially when there is a huge issue with energy costs which is going to prove impossible for many people.
Not sure why you go round every thread either mentioning JC or the SNP or looking up previous comments from people especially when you get rather upset when other posters do that to you.
In the case of EDF, they are actually paying a 53% premium above the close price when the offer was made so your point is both incorrect and childish.
Well done.
SB
[Post edited 12 Aug 2022 17:26]
Bloody hell Stokie. I was only yanking your chain. I just thought it was funny that somebody who has been so against nationalisation is now in favour. It's a bit like me saying we should get JC in as PM.
I did put a little wink at the end of my post to show I wasn't being entirely serious. If it was genuinely my intention to call you out for past comments on nationalisation I'd have posted....
"Why would any company invest in the UK if that investment could then be taken away from them at an arbitrary price decided by the current ruling government.
It's totally bonkers.
It would make doing business in the UK utterly toxic for virtually any sensible foreign investor/company".
Regarding "go round every thread either mentioning JC or the SNP", I think you may be mistaking me for Koonters.
I can count on one hand how many times I've posted about the SNP. The post in this thread is entirely relevant to the discussion on energy. We were promised not for profit energy in Scotland sat the election before last.
I live in Scotland. We have an SNP government. I'd say that my few posts about the SNP government are dwarfed by the number of posts from you berating the UK Tory government.
JC? Find me the last thread I started on him. I usually tend to join in threads that have already mentioned magic grandpa.
And I really don't mind people dragging up my previous comments on here. I bet some of my sunny uplands comments during the Brexit referendum are pretty cringy. But I'd taken them with good humour.
Anyway, can you please release the real Stokie from the dungeon you are keeping him in, give him back his keyboard and get him start posting on TWTD again.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 12:50 - Aug 12 by giant_stow
As long as no one starts a war near them.
For humans, in the short term. But in the great scheme of things, it could be argued that areas of irradiated land which humans stay away from for a few hundred years might be wholly beneficial to the rest of nature.
For a start there's no industry adding to emissions on them, and they're also a haven for species which are persecuted by us to extinction everywhere else. They quickly become great carbon sinks. The Chernobyl area is (or was) supposedly a thriving wildlife haven.
Nuclear has always been the big scary thing for most people since the very graphic imagery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but life on earth is far more likely to survive nuclear accidents or even a small- to medium-scale nuclear war, than it is to survive runaway global warming. Everybody needs to understand that.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 12:23 - Aug 12 by SuperKieranMcKenna
The French also had the foresight to produce 70pc of their energy from Nuclear which has also left them less exposed to the volatile wholesale gas price for power generation.
Energy is the primary (not only) driver or inflation at the moment, and France is running at a much lower (sub 6pc) rate than the UK and most of continental Europe.
Unfortunately they have huge issues at the moment as loads of their reactors have had to be shut down because they have found issues with them (I think currently nearly half of them are out of action, although some are closed for routine maintenance), plus during the heatwave, local water supplies are too warm to use for cooling...
Usually France exports power to us but since April we've largely been exporting to them.
0
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 11:23 - Aug 13 with 780 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 17:25 - Aug 12 by StokieBlue
One is allowed to have nuanced opinions, especially when there is a huge issue with energy costs which is going to prove impossible for many people.
Not sure why you go round every thread either mentioning JC or the SNP or looking up previous comments from people especially when you get rather upset when other posters do that to you.
In the case of EDF, they are actually paying a 53% premium above the close price when the offer was made so your point is both incorrect and childish.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 10:08 - Aug 13 by NthQldITFC
For humans, in the short term. But in the great scheme of things, it could be argued that areas of irradiated land which humans stay away from for a few hundred years might be wholly beneficial to the rest of nature.
For a start there's no industry adding to emissions on them, and they're also a haven for species which are persecuted by us to extinction everywhere else. They quickly become great carbon sinks. The Chernobyl area is (or was) supposedly a thriving wildlife haven.
Nuclear has always been the big scary thing for most people since the very graphic imagery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but life on earth is far more likely to survive nuclear accidents or even a small- to medium-scale nuclear war, than it is to survive runaway global warming. Everybody needs to understand that.
Yep, I did see a documentary on the wild life that had developed in such regions, the new species that had developed were quite impressive, Mothra and Godzilla were the ones that stood out for me.
2
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 13:05 - Aug 13 with 695 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 09:56 - Aug 13 by GlasgowBlue
Bloody hell Stokie. I was only yanking your chain. I just thought it was funny that somebody who has been so against nationalisation is now in favour. It's a bit like me saying we should get JC in as PM.
I did put a little wink at the end of my post to show I wasn't being entirely serious. If it was genuinely my intention to call you out for past comments on nationalisation I'd have posted....
"Why would any company invest in the UK if that investment could then be taken away from them at an arbitrary price decided by the current ruling government.
It's totally bonkers.
It would make doing business in the UK utterly toxic for virtually any sensible foreign investor/company".
Regarding "go round every thread either mentioning JC or the SNP", I think you may be mistaking me for Koonters.
I can count on one hand how many times I've posted about the SNP. The post in this thread is entirely relevant to the discussion on energy. We were promised not for profit energy in Scotland sat the election before last.
I live in Scotland. We have an SNP government. I'd say that my few posts about the SNP government are dwarfed by the number of posts from you berating the UK Tory government.
JC? Find me the last thread I started on him. I usually tend to join in threads that have already mentioned magic grandpa.
And I really don't mind people dragging up my previous comments on here. I bet some of my sunny uplands comments during the Brexit referendum are pretty cringy. But I'd taken them with good humour.
Anyway, can you please release the real Stokie from the dungeon you are keeping him in, give him back his keyboard and get him start posting on TWTD again.
He was a great bloke and I miss him.
Thanks for your honesty and in return I shall be honest.
With regards to the comment you made in this thread, I don't regard an emoji at the end of something like that as not being serious, more a way of posting a dig and trying to get away with it, if that was your actual intention then fine and I shouldn't have responded in such a way.
As for nationalisation, it's a nuanced subject, I am still not in favour of nationalisation of certain things (Royal Mail for instance) and certainly not at an arbitrary price (which was the case for the Labour manifesto you are quoting) however the French were nationalising at 53% above the market price which is completely fair.
As for the "real" Stokie, the pile-ons I received during Covid (of which you were sometimes a part) did quite annoy me, possibly even upset me and I think deep down I have changed how I feel I need to respond to people. I would often be extremely patient with people and look to placate but given I was shown no quarter at all by quite a few on here for simply posting scientific facts (as uncomfortable as they may have been for some) I don't really feel the need to do that anymore. Why should patience and understanding be a one-way street? Why should being scientifically accurate be met with abuse and pile-ons? Why should posting uncomfortable truths result in me being roundly set upon?
I actually left because I didn't feel this was the place for me anymore.
If the "real Stokie" is locked in my cellar then this forum only has itself to blame.
SB
2
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 13:09 - Aug 13 with 682 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 13:05 - Aug 13 by StokieBlue
Thanks for your honesty and in return I shall be honest.
With regards to the comment you made in this thread, I don't regard an emoji at the end of something like that as not being serious, more a way of posting a dig and trying to get away with it, if that was your actual intention then fine and I shouldn't have responded in such a way.
As for nationalisation, it's a nuanced subject, I am still not in favour of nationalisation of certain things (Royal Mail for instance) and certainly not at an arbitrary price (which was the case for the Labour manifesto you are quoting) however the French were nationalising at 53% above the market price which is completely fair.
As for the "real" Stokie, the pile-ons I received during Covid (of which you were sometimes a part) did quite annoy me, possibly even upset me and I think deep down I have changed how I feel I need to respond to people. I would often be extremely patient with people and look to placate but given I was shown no quarter at all by quite a few on here for simply posting scientific facts (as uncomfortable as they may have been for some) I don't really feel the need to do that anymore. Why should patience and understanding be a one-way street? Why should being scientifically accurate be met with abuse and pile-ons? Why should posting uncomfortable truths result in me being roundly set upon?
I actually left because I didn't feel this was the place for me anymore.
If the "real Stokie" is locked in my cellar then this forum only has itself to blame.
SB
0
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 13:12 - Aug 13 with 681 views
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 13:05 - Aug 13 by StokieBlue
Thanks for your honesty and in return I shall be honest.
With regards to the comment you made in this thread, I don't regard an emoji at the end of something like that as not being serious, more a way of posting a dig and trying to get away with it, if that was your actual intention then fine and I shouldn't have responded in such a way.
As for nationalisation, it's a nuanced subject, I am still not in favour of nationalisation of certain things (Royal Mail for instance) and certainly not at an arbitrary price (which was the case for the Labour manifesto you are quoting) however the French were nationalising at 53% above the market price which is completely fair.
As for the "real" Stokie, the pile-ons I received during Covid (of which you were sometimes a part) did quite annoy me, possibly even upset me and I think deep down I have changed how I feel I need to respond to people. I would often be extremely patient with people and look to placate but given I was shown no quarter at all by quite a few on here for simply posting scientific facts (as uncomfortable as they may have been for some) I don't really feel the need to do that anymore. Why should patience and understanding be a one-way street? Why should being scientifically accurate be met with abuse and pile-ons? Why should posting uncomfortable truths result in me being roundly set upon?
I actually left because I didn't feel this was the place for me anymore.
If the "real Stokie" is locked in my cellar then this forum only has itself to blame.
SB
Fair enough Strokie. But I've never been involved in a pile on against you regarding Covid.
I pride myself on having a pretty good memory for my age, and the only thread I can recall that you may be referring to was when Fixers said that you were getting obsessive about Covid and I commented that the subject seemed to have consumed you, and that it had made you less tolerant to people who wanted life to return as it was before March 2020. This may have been on the thread about mask wearing to prevent deaths from the Flu.
Looking back at our exchanges from the first year of COVID, you couldn't put a fag paper between our views.
Anyway, I still have the greatest of respect for you as a poster on here. I just miss our old chats.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 12:59 - Aug 13 by eireblue
Yep, I did see a documentary on the wild life that had developed in such regions, the new species that had developed were quite impressive, Mothra and Godzilla were the ones that stood out for me.
Oh sure, you'll get a few mutations, but nothing as bad as you get north of the Waveney.
Typically feeble energy bill response from Starmer on 13:05 - Aug 13 by StokieBlue
Thanks for your honesty and in return I shall be honest.
With regards to the comment you made in this thread, I don't regard an emoji at the end of something like that as not being serious, more a way of posting a dig and trying to get away with it, if that was your actual intention then fine and I shouldn't have responded in such a way.
As for nationalisation, it's a nuanced subject, I am still not in favour of nationalisation of certain things (Royal Mail for instance) and certainly not at an arbitrary price (which was the case for the Labour manifesto you are quoting) however the French were nationalising at 53% above the market price which is completely fair.
As for the "real" Stokie, the pile-ons I received during Covid (of which you were sometimes a part) did quite annoy me, possibly even upset me and I think deep down I have changed how I feel I need to respond to people. I would often be extremely patient with people and look to placate but given I was shown no quarter at all by quite a few on here for simply posting scientific facts (as uncomfortable as they may have been for some) I don't really feel the need to do that anymore. Why should patience and understanding be a one-way street? Why should being scientifically accurate be met with abuse and pile-ons? Why should posting uncomfortable truths result in me being roundly set upon?
I actually left because I didn't feel this was the place for me anymore.
If the "real Stokie" is locked in my cellar then this forum only has itself to blame.
SB
I would think I speak for the vast majority of people on here, when I say that this is a much poorer place when you are not around.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
