DT Politics Thread

[mondo_notion]

40 minutes ago, swaddon said:

It's over 100 billion for the whole thing.

Which will probably double before a train even hits the tracks.

Aye right enough that's my typo.... £1 billion per mile.

[Jupiter]

1 hour ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

Some nice light afternoon reading on here today.

And all of it bollocks

[TheDonbytheDee]

1 hour ago, mondo_notion said:

Here's some lighter reading for you....

HS2 has been delayed, will have trains run at a reduced speed and will cost more than NASA's Artemis moon mission.

I did read somewhere that it equates to about £100 billion per mile but shirley that can't be right?

Could build a lot of ferries for that kind of money.

 

[TheDonbytheDee]

11 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

And all of it bollocks

Not at all, both posters make some very valid points.

I agree with Rico more, but prefer Masons optimism.

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, Jupiter said:

And all of it bollocks

It wasn't written for your type. 

[TheDonbytheDee]

The UK has loosened sanctions on Russian oil, due to supplies running out.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy42x3g7r89o

[Mason89]

Being a pathetic spineless waste of space is what puts the Great into Great Britain. Looking like insignificant desperados on the world stage was worth it because of all those German neurosurgeons that were taking are jobs. Take that Herman. Bosh! 

[Mason89]

Tremendous stuff 

[TheDonbytheDee]

1 hour ago, Mason89 said:

Tremendous stuff 

A tory Peer has came out raging against it. "the stuff on nonsense!".

The fact the UK Government have just postponed the upcoming rise in fuel duty, makes me think they are beginning to get squeaky bums over the ongoing Iran situation and the impact on the supply chain. 

Get the baked beans stockpiled folks.

[RicoS321]

6 hours ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

The UK has loosened sanctions on Russian oil, due to supplies running out.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy42x3g7r89o

 

13 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

A tory Peer has came out raging against it. "the stuff on nonsense!".

The fact the UK Government have just postponed the upcoming rise in fuel duty, makes me think they are beginning to get squeaky bums over the ongoing Iran situation and the impact on the supply chain. 

Get the baked beans stockpiled folks.

Well, aye. This is the point I've been making....

Our entire system is based on diesel. Even the "renewables". Wait until they find out what the fertiliser is made out of.

[TheDonbytheDee]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

 

Well, aye. This is the point I've been making....

Our entire system is based on diesel. Even the "renewables". Wait until they find out what the fertiliser is made out of.

I know it is.

No argument from me.

I believe in a move away from oil and I work in the industry, but common sense needs applied as to how to transition from it.

Takes decades and lots of investment and no country is geared up for it, bar possibly China.

Could be some difficult times ahead.

 

[RicoS321]

58 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

I know it is.

No argument from me.

I believe in a move away from oil and I work in the industry, but common sense needs applied as to how to transition from it.

Takes decades and lots of investment and no country is geared up for it, bar possibly China.

Could be some difficult times ahead.

 

China creates its renewables by burning coal. It's geared up for, at best, one iteration of renewables. That's ignoring all the other materials required to produce them, because, lo and behold, they aren't themselves renewable. The answer isn't moving away from oil, it's moving away from high energy use. Edit: which will happen whether we like it or not.

Edited May 20 by RicoS321

[Mason89]

China is the worlds biggest burner of coal but also the biggest user of renewables. Coal is there to mainly to provide stability to the grid & it's fairly cheap. 

Have a look at the open infrastructure map. It shows the direction they're heading although i suspect it might give you the heebie jeebies

--> Open Infrastructure Map

* It also shows England's power theft. Those Eastern Green Links don't have meters on them...

Edited May 20 by Mason89

[TheDonbytheDee]

9 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

China creates its renewables by burning coal. It's geared up for, at best, one iteration of renewables. That's ignoring all the other materials required to produce them, because, lo and behold, they aren't themselves renewable. The answer isn't moving away from oil, it's moving away from high energy use. Edit: which will happen whether we like it or not.

We need to stop wasting all natural resources, but oil is currently the big one, as we consume so much of it, across so much areas.

Not going to go down well when shortages start to impact the supply chain and everyday items are impacted.

The worsst thing about the current supply issue, was that it was all planned.

The real shitstorm is yet to come.

My faith in China, is that they invest heavily in sciences, and not for shareholder return.

Might well be misplaced and could cause more problems if it comes to pass, but that's where I am on it.

 

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, Mason89 said:

China is the worlds biggest burner of coal but also the biggest user of renewables. Coal is there to mainly to provide stability to the grid & it's fairly cheap. 

Have a look at the open infrastructure map. It shows the direction they're heading although i suspect it might give you the heebie jeebies

--> Open Infrastructure Map

* It also shows England's power theft. Those Eastern Green Links don't have meters on them...

But you keep referring to renewables as if they're the solution to something, which they aren't. I'm well aware of China's massive investment in them, but it's based on mining resources from across the world, and not a single renewable is produced with renewables, but coal. Increasing coal consumption just to increase renewables makes no sense. Just like when we stopped burning wood, but ended up using more of it when building mineshafts. Or stopped using coal but used more of it to produce steel for drilling. Every transition to date has been additional, not a replacement. To date, China's transition is no different, and shows no likelihood of being so. 

1 hour ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

My faith in China, is that they invest heavily in sciences, and not for shareholder return

Yes they do, but they still have that competitive national pride that makes them ignore reality. The engineers in their government are very well qualified, but they seem to have missed out the ecologists like the rest of the world.

[Mason89]

Either you’re missing something completely obvious I’ve said or I’ve missed something completely obvious you’ve said but this isn’t making any sense whatsoever 

[RicoS321]

27 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

Either you’re missing something completely obvious I’ve said or I’ve missed something completely obvious you’ve said but this isn’t making any sense whatsoever 

Possibly. China is equally as fucked as the rest of the world if they continue their trajectory based on growth, basically. The only difference will be timing. Renewables are reliant on fossil fuels and are not a solution (as in, you can't just switch oil to wind and solar). That's my take on China. You've not really put forward a take on anything as far as I can tell, other than that we know the solutions. 

[Mason89]

I’m still missing it

I think our definition of renewables differ 

[Jupiter]

The only thing that will ever reduce dependence on fossil fuels will be nuclear fusion if somebody ever figures out how to do it. It is probably about 30 years away, although that is what they said about 30 years ago.

[RicoS321]

32 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

I think our definition of renewables differ 

Yes, they do. Renewables aren't actually renewable, which is essentially a marketing term. The energy that powers them is renewable, but that's not much use if they have a ~20 year lifespan and they require fossil fuels to build, ship and maintain, as well as being made of various minerals that require fossil fuels to mine, and are also not renewable. 

They could, in theory, provide a temporary solution to climate change, but they fail on every other planetary constraint, ergo they are unsustainable.

[RicoS321]

12 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

The only thing that will ever reduce dependence on fossil fuels will be nuclear fusion if somebody ever figures out how to do it. It is probably about 30 years away, although that is what they said about 30 years ago.

Agreed. Nuclear fusion would destroy the planet if it ever happened (which it won't). Could you imagine our species with even more energy availablity? 

[Jupiter]

How would nuclear fusion destroy the planet? You obviously don't know what it is if you believe that.

[TheDonbytheDee]

2 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

But you keep referring to renewables as if they're the solution to something, which they aren't. I'm well aware of China's massive investment in them, but it's based on mining resources from across the world, and not a single renewable is produced with renewables, but coal. Increasing coal consumption just to increase renewables makes no sense. Just like when we stopped burning wood, but ended up using more of it when building mineshafts. Or stopped using coal but used more of it to produce steel for drilling. Every transition to date has been additional, not a replacement. To date, China's transition is no different, and shows no likelihood of being so. 

Yes they do, but they still have that competitive national pride that makes them ignore reality. The engineers in their government are very well qualified, but they seem to have missed out the ecologists like the rest of the world.

I ain't no scientist, but I just have a feeling that a lot of the answers, to the issues facing the world, will come through China.

Neither of us know the answer to the worlds problems (I certainly don't) and it's going to take a collaborative approach to fix all the issues, but I'd rather have some hope, granted, based on nothing, than to just think we are all doomed to extinction.

If we do survive, future generations won't think too kindly on our time in charge.

Edited May 20 by TheDonbytheDee

[RicoS321]

18 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

I ain't no scientist, but I just have a feeling that a lot of the answers, to the issues facing the world, will come through China.

Neither of us know the answer to the worlds problems (I certainly don't) and it's going to take a collaborative approach to fix all the issues, but I'd rather have some hope, granted, based on nothing, than to just think we are all doomed to extinction.

If we do survive, future generations won't think too kindly on our time in charge.

I'm sure there are plenty of extremely thoughtful, nice, people in China and they might just have some great technology. However, they operate under the same principle as every other nation on earth, which is a parasitic growth based system. 

I don't believe that the answer will lie in any global system. There hasn't been a sustainable global system, and all the evidence points to one not being possible. That doesn't mean extinction, just an end to civilisation and modernity. I'd strongly argue that continuation of any global system at all costs is the most likely thing to cause extinction.

[RicoS321]

40 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

How would nuclear fusion destroy the planet? You obviously don't know what it is if you believe that.

Nuclear fusion wouldn't destroy the planet. Just as a gun wouldn't shoot another human, or animal. Ecological destruction is a function of energy use. The more energy humans have access to, the more they despoil the planet and the greater the number of species extinctions. Unless unlimited free energy reversed that trend, for some unknown reason, then free unlimited energy would be the end. Although, I guess fusion is always neatly packaged up with the childish (I'm not calling you childish) dreams of colonising space, so I guess we can ignore evidence in our fictional fusion world.