Capitalism looking to space for new funds.....

[kaosmark2]

that's it though, isn't it. It wouldn't be worth it in the short term, but it would over a longer period. For some reason we only care about the short term.

[kaosmark2]

w*nkers like Greenpeace?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Yup.

[kaosmark2]

I was wondering the same thing. You'd have thought they'd be all for it. What do they want then as an alternative energy source or sources?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

They don't. That's the problem. They want something that isn't nuclear, that doesn't take up hill space (wind), that doesn't damage bird/fish habitats (wave/hydroelectric), that doesn't mean unused countryside is turned into crop fields (biofuels, which are incredibly inefficient anyway).

As far as I know they haven't yet raised any objection to solar panels in urban areas. So seemingly, they want every single person to have their own individual solar power (which is only efficient if people can feed back into the grid and use spare energy to repower hydroelectric).

Wave is phenomenally efficient. But the idiotic government back in 93 when it was first looked into commissioned some energy experts to assess which would be the most efficient. The energy experts asked were in the nuclear power industry. Guess which answer they gave?

[lost]

As far as I was aware you always need a "base load" which renewables (so far) can't provide. This needs to be fossil fuels or nuclear. Since global warming theory became prominent, nuclear has seen a resurgence with green types like monibot, always assumed Greenpeace were the same.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

They don't. That's the problem. They want something that isn't nuclear, that doesn't take up hill space (wind), that doesn't damage bird/fish habitats (wave/hydroelectric), that doesn't mean unused countryside is turned into crop fields (biofuels, which are incredibly inefficient anyway).

As far as I know they haven't yet raised any objection to solar panels in urban areas. So seemingly, they want every single person to have their own individual solar power (which is only efficient if people can feed back into the grid and use spare energy to repower hydroelectric).

Wave is phenomenally efficient. But the idiotic government back in 93 when it was first looked into commissioned some energy experts to assess which would be the most efficient. The energy experts asked were in the nuclear power industry. Guess which answer they gave?

[kaosmark2]

What is needed is a dramatic way in which people view a resource like electricity and to be able to make life changes to reduce use.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I heard a geologist or some such on radio 4 a while back talking about the minerals that we have on earth. He said that compared to what's beneath us we have barely even scratched the surface with our open cast and deep mining. Just sayin' what i heard.

[kaosmark2]

http://www.guardian....ption-disasters

"The planet has sufficient resources to sustain 9 billion, but we can only ensure a sustainable future for all if we address grossly unequal levels of consumption. Fairly redistributing the lion's share of the earth's resources consumed by the richest 10% would bring development so that infant mortality rates are reduced, many more people are educated and women are empowered to determine their family size – all of which will bring down birth rates", said an Oxfam spokeswoman.

[kaosmark2]

I heard a geologist or some such on radio 4 a while back talking about the minerals that we have on earth. He said that compared to what's beneath us we have barely even scratched the surface with our open cast and deep mining. Just sayin' what i heard.

[Purple Monkey]

Dear Lord, I know you are fictional, but we are really really fucked and could use a hand.

Yours truly,

Humanity.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Purple Monkey

[kaosmark2]

The only thing we need a hand for is to give us a collective slap.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Minerals aren't unavailable, just difficult to get.

The problem is more drinking water and arable land.

[kaosmark2]

Empty space is easier to move through than rock and lava.

Save the nutting for the politicians.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Empty space is easier to move through than rock and lava.

Save the nutting for the politicians.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Yeh, I got you on the quantative easing. It's a worry that once they came up a brick wall on this planet as to what to do that they simply decided to expand their logic by jumping planets instead of questioning it.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

there seems to be a lot of nothing that's worth billions these days.... al the internet companies that don't make money but are worth loads?

now we've got asteroids

[kaosmark2]

Crazy yeah. I just got distracted by the mineral and environmentalist talk.

Not got much to say about crazy capitalist theories.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Crazy yeah. I just got distracted by the mineral and environmentalist talk.

Not got much to say about crazy capitalist theories.

[kaosmark2]

Back to the environmentalist talk - they are making progress with new build housing projects and that they have to meet an energy rating which both ensures adequate insulation and also efficient use of energy. However, I can't see why every new house shouldn't have a heat sump. More free and renewable energy. It's a no brainer, surely.

[Purple Monkey]

Exactly. What can they possibly come up with next I wonder. Once they've sold space the only 'tangible' commodity left is ones soul. How much is the going rate for a soul?

Edited April 28, 2012 by Purple Monkey

[Purple Monkey]

I don't get why not either.

There was some half-mentioned scheme about 8 years ago where the government would give you an inflation-rate-interest loan to put solar panels on your house, and you had to pay it back on the timescale and rate that was estimated to be equivalent to the money you save on your energy bill. Seemed like a very good scheme to encourage it but I don't know if it even started.

[lost]

I don't get why not either.

There was some half-mentioned scheme about 8 years ago where the government would give you an inflation-rate-interest loan to put solar panels on your house, and you had to pay it back on the timescale and rate that was estimated to be equivalent to the money you save on your energy bill. Seemed like a very good scheme to encourage it but I don't know if it even started.

[kaosmark2]

Theres been quite a boom in solar pannels recently due to the tariff subsidy but I can see another mis-selling scandal brewing. Alot of people have leased their roofs to solar pannel companies for 25 years but then when they come to sell or remortgage the banks won't touch them:

http://blogs.telegra...nsive-mistake/