Posted by: Helmut de Smegma, Glasgow on 1:25pm Fri 21 Nov 08
1700 potential well needed jobs and our Friends of the Earth friend is focused on "carbon capture".
1700 potential well needed jobs and our Friends of the Earth friend is focused on "carbon capture".
Posted by: Heidthebaw, Glasgow on 1:47pm Fri 21 Nov 08
The greens don't want nuclear, now they don't want coal and biomass. They have already voiced their dislike of wind farms.
Do we just go back to the stone age and kid on we never discovered fire ?
Perhaps they could give us an idea of what we COULD do, instead of whining about other folks ideas.
Solar power in scotland makes about as much sense as a hydro-electric project in the Sahara.
We could all buy 10,000 hamsters and put them on wheels to generate power in our homes.
The greens don't want nuclear, now they don't want coal and biomass. They have already voiced their dislike of wind farms.
Do we just go back to the stone age and kid on we never discovered fire ?
Perhaps they could give us an idea of what we COULD do, instead of whining about other folks ideas.
Solar power in scotland makes about as much sense as a hydro-electric project in the Sahara.
We could all buy 10,000 hamsters and put them on wheels to generate power in our homes.
Posted by: Brad on 1:54pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Scotland has excellent renewable energy resources. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy around, although it might still be necessary in the short-term.
We can't afford to save the planet, of course.
Scotland has excellent renewable energy resources. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy around, although it might still be necessary in the short-term.
We can't afford to save the planet, of course.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 1:55pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Out of a full edition of this newspaper - usually the biggest being on a Friday, the editorial is allowing [bold]YOU[/bold] to comment on three stories.
One of them is pathetic spin for Liebour dinosaurs, the other is complaints from tree huggers but no mention of a farce in Denmark and the other is not worth commenting on.
That's poor by any standard.
At the BBC, they allow you to comment on various issues, even the Murray - Reid spat.
Its like a Saddam regime controlling the news here.
Out of a full edition of this newspaper - usually the biggest being on a Friday, the editorial is allowing
YOU to comment on three stories.
One of them is pathetic spin for Liebour dinosaurs, the other is complaints from tree huggers but no mention of a farce in Denmark and the other is not worth commenting on.
That's poor by any standard.
At the BBC, they allow you to comment on various issues, even the Murray - Reid spat.
Its like a Saddam regime controlling the news here.
Posted by: victor meldrew, condorrat on 5:11pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Do I understand from this, it will be powered solely by 'imported' coal? -while Scottish mining communities are now ghost towns. - Mrs Thachers chickens coming home to roost? Very sad.
Do I understand from this, it will be powered solely by 'imported' coal? -while Scottish mining communities are now ghost towns. - Mrs Thachers chickens coming home to roost? Very sad.
Posted by: 2for1, Glasgow on 6:52pm Fri 21 Nov 08
[quote][bold]victor meldrew[/bold] wrote:
Do I understand from this, it will be powered solely by 'imported' coal? -while Scottish mining communities are now ghost towns. - Mrs Thachers chickens coming home to roost? Very sad.[/quote] Am I being a bit naïve here... the fact that coal is imported and not sourced in Scotland is down to what? Cost? So, surely, had Thatcher not closed the mines, we would be either using our own higher priced coal (and thus depleting our stocks for hundreds of years time when future generations might need it more than we do. Selling the family's dirty silver so to speak!) Or, our industry would be facing severe competition from Europe and its cheaper coal! You only have to look at ship building to see how well that's doing these days - an industry she didnt close down.
So, I guess, Thatcher did what was enevitable. I would agree, it could have been done better, but in time, the industry would have declined and it would be another problem on our countries already long list!
Or am I wrong!?
And as for the greens, well... 'nuf said!
2f1
victor meldrew wrote:
Do I understand from this, it will be powered solely by 'imported' coal? -while Scottish mining communities are now ghost towns. - Mrs Thachers chickens coming home to roost? Very sad.
Am I being a bit naïve here... the fact that coal is imported and not sourced in Scotland is down to what? Cost? So, surely, had Thatcher not closed the mines, we would be either using our own higher priced coal (and thus depleting our stocks for hundreds of years time when future generations might need it more than we do. Selling the family's dirty silver so to speak!) Or, our industry would be facing severe competition from Europe and its cheaper coal! You only have to look at ship building to see how well that's doing these days - an industry she didnt close down.
So, I guess, Thatcher did what was enevitable. I would agree, it could have been done better, but in time, the industry would have declined and it would be another problem on our countries already long list!
Or am I wrong!?
And as for the greens, well... 'nuf said!
2f1
Posted by: J brown, Paisley on 7:01pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Build an Nuclear Power station that is the way
forward, or are we going to be left behind the rest of the world.
Build an Nuclear Power station that is the way
forward, or are we going to be left behind the rest of the world.
Posted by: I Predict A Riot, Glasgow on 7:02pm Fri 21 Nov 08
It's unlikely the new power station would be pumping out any more smoke than some of the buses running around Glasgow:-(
It's unlikely the new power station would be pumping out any more smoke than some of the buses running around Glasgow:-(
Posted by: R U Crazy?, Arlington on 5:22am Sat 22 Nov 08
If you are trying to get a zero carbon footprint, do you really think a coal burning power plant is the way to go? Even with a 25% reduction in carbon, so what?....75% carbon emissions still exist. Do you need to be a rocket scientist to do the calculation?
If you are trying to get a zero carbon footprint, do you really think a coal burning power plant is the way to go? Even with a 25% reduction in carbon, so what?....75% carbon emissions still exist. Do you need to be a rocket scientist to do the calculation?