Originally posted by SupremeSpod
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The never ending green bollox.
Collapse
X
-
Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away. -
Originally posted by zeitghost View PostJust found out this lot are "auditing" us next week:
Green Dragon Environmental Standard
It's no fecking wonder the country is going down the tubes, more fecking five a day green auditors than you can incinerate comfortably in a blast furnace (if we still had some of those cos they're really nasty CO2 emitters of course and deserve to be shut down as soon as possible).
ISO 14001, as with other ISO 14000 standards, is voluntary (IISD 2010), with its main aim to assist companies in continually improving their environmental performance, whilst complying with any applicable legislation. Organizations are responsible for setting their own targets and performance measures, with the standard serving to assist them in meeting objectives and goals and the subsequent monitoring and measurement of these (IISD 2010). This means that two organizations that have completely different measures and standards of environmental performance, can both comply with ISO 14001 requirements (Federal Facilities Council Report 1999).Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.Comment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Postthats true, but isnt nuclear subsidised as well ?
Costs for nuclear power generation and decommissioning are approx 3 times that of wind power.
Decommission a wind farm and all but about 12% of the installations are recyclable with no long term contamination.Confusion is a natural state of beingComment
-
Originally posted by Diver View PostHeavily. Wind power is not.
Costs for nuclear power generation and decommissioning are approx 3 times that of wind power.
Decommission a wind farm and all but about 12% of the installations are recyclable with no long term contamination.(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
Green bollox.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/29...crotum-SPL.jpg
NSFW. Don't click the link if your eyes water easily.Comment
-
I don't think anyone knows how much nuclear costs, especially since plants were historically "bleeding edge prototypes" rather than mass produced off-the-shelf products. The Frenchies seem keen on them and seem to make good(ish) ones, but we'll probably get ripped off with ones that go boom, I expect.Comment
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Postwind is not subsidised ? you are bonkers
The Lions share of 0.4 billion going to Nuclear.
I am currently working on three offshore wind projects of the 11 under development or in design.
1 at 2.5 billion
1 at 2.7 billion
1 at 4 billion
The money apart from a few measly million is coming from private investors not government.
A few million in subsidies doesn't make a dent in that lot. Remember that the 0.7 billion in subsidies is split between the dozens of onshore wind farms and wave & tidal projects too.
Do some research
Most of the Decc's budget is spent on decommissioning nuclear power stations and managing nuclear waste, which cost taxpayers £7bn in 2010-11. Nuclear power is expected to benefit from the forthcoming carbon floor price, receiving perhaps £50m a year, and possible tax exemption on uranium. "hidden subsidies", such as the limit on an operator's liability for accidents which reduces insurance costs, are worth billions alone.Confusion is a natural state of beingComment
-
Diver you seem to think being an expert on the subject makes your opinions more valuable, like you're some kind of expert.
Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI'd still not breastfeed a naziOriginally posted by vetranUrine is quite nourishingComment
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostDiver you seem to think being an expert on the subject makes your opinions more valuable, like you're some kind of expert.
Confusion is a natural state of beingComment
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostI don't think anyone knows how much nuclear costs, especially since plants were historically "bleeding edge prototypes" rather than mass produced off-the-shelf products. The Frenchies seem keen on them and seem to make good(ish) ones, but we'll probably get ripped off with ones that go boom, I expect.
Back in the wars of nuke plants, just before the Thatcher era started. Britain though, could never stabilise and make ARG's though, that is why we purchased the American designs as many others did.
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Postnot like 6 big power stations.
only a lunatic would build six big power stations and then say, they will only produce lecky when the wind blows, at the right speed, and we will subsidise them by putting their three times cost onto bills, thereby ensuring an increase in fuel poverty, and by the way, we will have to build a further 6 big power stations to back these ones up for when the wind does not blow.
lunacy
and we will ruin your view as well
ugly things
- Land space: To provide the same amount of power as other plants, much more land mass is needed.
- Materials: To produce the same energy as any other power plant, far more many raw materials are needed. The concrete bases/foundations, the giant steel structures, the generators attached to each motorised gearbox, etc etc. In short, win turbines are far more environmentally harmful even before they are switched on. Another con like the Prius.
EO and others seem rather reasonable and might like a paper written by Jesse H. Ausubel of the rockefeller university:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...DI7vpQ96VFKEwA
In it he explains how the greenest power generation is nuclear fission and to grow the market and be sustainable nuclear must pair with methane. In the paper he labels each alternative energy production method such as wind or hydroelectric and then disproves each in turn with facts and figures, explaining how each harms the environment.
I have a copy saved on my server, called "people who believe in green energy are retarded" and pass it on to others willing to read it.
If we stopped morons blasting nuclear fission and embraced it, then in time we can move closer to fusion which will revolutionise the way we think of power.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment