Bluey Circles:
the UK is currently using around 1,300,000 barrels per day, at the moment Scotland is producing less than 500,000.
So unless we start developing our own energy from alternative sources (Nuclear, Fracking, Wind, Tidal) then we will always be at the mercy of the middle east. And as we should be able to see by now, the true costs of us permanently interfering in other countries affairs is coming in at an astonishing cost.
How are we supposedly only producing 500,000 when exports alone are supposedly exceeding that figure.With reported actual production figures of 850,000 about to increase by at least 3% as of August 2015.
indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=uk&v=95
While it seems obvious that we’ve been depleting our resources at suicidal levels by turning the stuff into cash which just adds to inflation and helps our competitors.
Then the Socialists like Sturgeon have got the nerve to keep on spouting the same old hypocritical bs that we have to stop consumption at home to supposedly prevent ‘global warming’.So they can keep on flogging the stuff on the international markets to pay for their bs something for nothing economic ideology. 
Bluey Circles:
the UK is currently using around 1,300,000 barrels per day, at the moment Scotland is producing less than 500,000.
So unless we start developing our own energy from alternative sources (Nuclear, Fracking, Wind, Tidal) then we will always be at the mercy of the middle east. And as we should be able to see by now, the true costs of us permanently interfering in other countries affairs is coming in at an astonishing cost.
sounds sensible idea !
i am arguing that the mindset of ‘cheap oil good’ is idiotic .
especially when people who argue this, are often also arguing against Mohammedism and EU and WTO .
they need to square the circle of their thinking and realise that english dependency on oil means we are ALSO dependent on Mohammedist countries , the value of the $ and international big business .
i want an independent England , but id be pretty stupid to think this can be achieved whilst lapping up Allahs oil like a drunk in a cider vat .
boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast:
Fine.So you’re talking about a world in which the breakup of the UK is a done deal.In which water vapour isn’t a greenhouse contributor let alone the largest one.In which renewables are obviously going to meet all of the current and extra burden on the electricity supply of domestic and hydrogen production requirements anyway.So no need to worry about the water vapour issue of the extra load on steam turbine driven electricity production anyway.Even if it is or isn’t a green house gas.
you may be right . im going to library to check it out .
i certainly have never heard of water vapour being an argument for/against renewable/oil power before .
my understanding is that the sun is biggest generator of water vapour , and without either there would be no water cycle or life on earth . the idea that renewables would generate more water vapour than nonrenewable sources of energy sounds daft . any power station that burns things generates steam to drive the turbines .
only kinetic energy sources ( wave , tidal , wind ) do not generate steam to drive turbines so i cant see how these would make alleged problem worse .
i SUSPECT this is just on of those ideas from yankee climate change deniers who seek to prove than man made emissions of fossil fuel greenhouse gasses are insignificant , compared to natural sources .
but , ive never made any claims on here about climate change and am open minded . clearly the climate and seasons are changing but im not 100% convinced this is due to either CO2 or methane , and my arguments for becoming an energy independent country are not related to this issue .i would certainly doubt tho that burning fossil fuels does our environment any good …
Carryfast:
While assuming the choice between hydrogen powered ICE or electric/fuel cell is just a matter of filling then the greens will obviously have no issues about the freedom of choice for anyone choosing the hydrogen ICE route not electric or electric fuel cell one.
i think the environmental impact of electrical energy must include the batteries required to store the energy on a vehicle . this is an obvious disadvantage of electric vehicles .
contrasting with the excellent methods of distributing electricity we have right now .
so probably electric vehicles now and hydrogen vehicles for the future .
Carryfast:
Last but not least your ideas for doubling of the current uk road fuel taxation regime will obviously also apply to the rest of the world and all modes of transport if it’s to effectively bring an end to fossil fuel use.
we would need UK to be ruling rest of world to achieve this surely ?
i reckon the Arabs might be upset . ill stick to worrying about England thanks all the same .
Carryfast:
At which point I’m guessing that Nicola Sturgeon has now rejoined the pro UK pro fossil fuel use side of the argument.Together with zb Obama. 
ive really not much idea about what these foreigners think and care even less . providing they dont interfere with my life of course .
I thought Obama and Sturgeon were both supposedly on board with your plans.At least that’s what they say.While you seem to be making more of the same unilateral bs which says stitch our own country up,by stopping fossil fuel use,while everyone else can do as they please.Especially if that hypocrisy can be dressed up under the wealth re distribution angle let alone helping China’s commy government.So no surprises there.
As for the issue of water vapour I was referring to the wholesale move to nuclear fuelled electricity production replacing automotive fossil fuel use.Whether that be directly or indirectly in the form of hydrogen production.
However going by your ideas that renewables like wind and tidal etc will cover it all more cheaply than fossil fuelled electricity and ICE’s can.I’m happy with the idea of renewables generated hydrogen to burn in ICE’s.Although somehow I think you know that your ideas are economically illiterate bs and you probably don’t even believe it yourself.
ok , we cut the price of oil to 1973(sic) price .
how many years have we got of this nirvana ■■?
and by way of comparison , how many years have we got of renewable in all its various guises ■■
p.s. please remember my kids range from ages 12 to 20 odd . im hoping a couple will get a telegram from queen !
boredwivdrivin:
i am arguing that the mindset of ‘cheap oil good’ is idiotic .
But you’ve also admitted that’s based on the really idiotic idea that you think using oil for fuel competes with your preference for it all being used for chemicals instead.When you’ll probably find that the two things are actually mutually dependent on each other for their viability.If not the latter being totally dependent on the continuing use of the former.
While also having no real costed answer to the alternatives.IE you’re totally dependent on much more expensive and dangerous nuclear power because the idea of an even more expensive renewables and nuclear dependent energy policy is total bs.As for the bs case against the UK’s fossil fuel reserves not providing self sufficiency no surprise that obviously conveniently over looks coal and coal derived liquid/gas products.
boredwivdrivin:
ok , we cut the price of oil to 1973(sic) price .
how many years have we got of this nirvana ■■?
and by way of comparison , how many years have we got of renewable in all its various guises ■■
i will come back to your above Q’s when you answer these !
then im going to ask you the cost of 1 watt of energy equivalent from both sources at your ‘end’ date .
boredwivdrivin:
ok , we cut the price of oil to 1973(sic) price .
how many years have we got of this nirvana ■■?
and by way of comparison , how many years have we got of renewable in all its various guises ■■
p.s. please remember my kids range from ages 12 to 20 odd . im hoping a couple will get a telegram from queen !
We’ve got enough coal for 1,000 years and they obviously don’t intend on capping the North Sea or North American reserves any time soon.But fine no one is stopping you proving that your re newables powered world will win out by competing against fossil fuels at those pre 1973 oil prices.As opposed to the artificially rationed and manipulated price regime we’ve had since.In which case your so called cheaper more efficient choice will obviously win out on clear economics.Bearing in mind as I’ve said I’m happy with a renewables produced hydrogen automotive fuels regime assuming it could work.As opposed to your obvious present idea which is all about making a cheap fuel artificially expensive to make your chosen much more expensive one look better in terms of cost.
not interested in coal .have not seen anyone arguing about price of coal in this thread .
oil .
boredwivdrivin:
ok , we cut the price of oil to 1973(sic) price .
how many years have we got of this nirvana ■■?
boredwivdrivin:
not interested in coal .
oil .
boredwivdrivin:
ok , we cut the price of oil to 1973(sic) price .
how many years have we got of this nirvana ■■?
Coal obviously includes coal to gas/liquid production or for that matter hydrogen.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids
As for oil no one alive now will live to see oil run out just as your renewables fuelled utopia isn’t going to be around anytime soon.Although if you really think that doubling the present rates of road fuel taxation will do it then go ahead.IE the price hasn’t collapsed yet again because everyone is prepared to pay more or because of loads of cheap hydrogen being available to run vehicles on instead.
As for electricity costs I’m guessing you haven’t yet converted your domestic heating system to electric although feel free to go ahead if you think it would be cheaper than gas.Even at today’s still cheaper still mostly fossil fuelled electricity generation.Let alone when you’ve finally closed down the choice in favour of nuclear and/or renewables and you’ve got to compete with automotive use for it.
still dodging the question .
most wikipedia puts north sea oil at a max of 25 to 40 years more production . and at a diminishing rate of extraction i would presume
what is the cost of the oil then ■■ will it still be pegged at 1973 level ■■ will the russians/saudis agree to your price preference ■■
all unknowns .
at some point will need to ween ourselves off .
so i have been consistantly arguing that oil price is doubled and revenue spent on investing in renewables .
because this will lead to our energy independence , sustainable industry , efficient use of remaining resources and improve our environment .
we all wish we could go back to 1973 ( especially as i was bonking a schoolgirl ) but we need to be planning for 2073 .
boredwivdrivin:
still dodging the question .
The irony of YOU taking umbrage at someone dodging a question is quite breath taking
trouble is you never accept the damned answers if you dont agree with them .
if you had an interesting position or opinion on anything i might be bothered
myopic self selecting diarrhetic preening on the highway code is all i see from you .
(i hope i answered that in my allotted time frame )
boredwivdrivin:
still dodging the question .
most wikipedia puts north sea oil at a max of 25 to 40 years more production . and at a diminishing rate of extraction i would presume
what is the cost of the oil then ■■ will it still be pegged at 1973 level ■■ will the russians/saudis agree to your price preference ■■
all unknowns .
at some point will need to ween ourselves off .
so i have been consistantly arguing that oil price is doubled and revenue spent on investing in renewables .
because this will lead to our energy independence , sustainable industry , efficient use of remaining resources and improve our environment .
we all wish we could go back to 1973 ( especially as i was bonking a schoolgirl ) but we need to be planning for 2073 .
If North Sea is supposedly diminishing how is it increasing at the same time.Also why are we flogging it off for cash instead of keeping it for ourselves.
So you double fuel taxation to spend on renewables how will you get the money and more importantly maintain the economy when the consumer says can’t pay won’t pay.In which case you not only end up with less tax revenues than before but you also reduce economic growth and increase inflation which can only be payed for by printing and borrowing more money.IE where we’ve been since 1973 in the form of more bust than boom reduced tax revenues and more debt.
As I said the way to do it is to maintain a decent oil price regime which promotes economic growth which then pays for your so called ‘better’ more efficient,more cost effective,energy regime.Assuming that is it really is better,more efficient and more cost effective.Obviously doubtful being that the only way your bs ideas can be paid for is by making an affordable fossil fuelled economy an un affordable one to match the un affordable one which you want to replace it with.All based on bs Socialist reasoning varying from the non existent warming of Venus by CO2,to it’s competing with chemicals production,to it’s all running out in the foreseeable future.
boredwivdrivin:
trouble is you never accept the damned answers if you dont agree with them
Ha ha ha ha ha…Stop it, your killing me
First you moan because someone is dodging a question THEN you have a pop about someone not accepting an answer they dont agree with.
You are priceless you are!
I suggest you go buy a dictionary and look up “hypocrite”. You’ll see a picture of you probably
BTW, why would anyone accept an answer they don’t agree with? Are you sure you know what the word “debate” means?
boredwivdrivin:
myopic self selecting diarrhetic preening on the highway code is all i see from you
Oh dear. Still hiding behind the old “I cant see anything to respond to” selective viewing technique are you?
I cant help it if basic highway code knowledge means half the guff you spout is irrelevant, wrong and makes you look like a tube. I find it strangely odd yet predictable that you can understand everything EXCEPT a direct question which pokes holes in your comments.
You say you were “bonking a schoolgirl” in 1973. So that makes you what, in your 50s? And you conduct yourself the way you do on here? Maybe if you grew up a bit and dropped the attitude you might get somewhere and be taken a bit more seriously
CF . perhaps you would care to prove your oil isnt running out ?
Everything i look at on your wiki thing says it is . its a reasonable assumption that a finite sized planet contains a finite sized resource .
And nowhere says we have 1000 yrs coal . but what is the cost of refining it to gas/liquid to make a usable product ■■ How much of its embeded energy is used to mine refine clean and transport the stuff ?
You are just ASSUMING oil/coal is cheaper ! You criticise everybody elses economics , but you cant provide any yourself . you dont even know how much oil will cost next month .only what it çost in 73 !
You are the luddite , scared of change , scared that something ‘socialist’ might be positive , scared of admitting when kinetic renewable facilities are built there is no further fuel cost , and scared of admitting oil has a high unaccounted cost in reducing our air quality particularly in cities .
Boom/bust ecomonics are the product of oil based capitalism and speculation .
Growth found by cheap oil is only a temporary spike .
Growth thru renewable energy will be real long term sustainable growth
Investment is needed now for realising in 20 years time .
Thats just the simple truth .
boredwivdrivin:
CF . perhaps you would care to prove your oil isnt running out ?
Everything i look at on your wiki thing says it is . its a reasonable assumption that a finite sized planet contains a finite sized resource .
And nowhere says we have 1000 yrs coal . but what is the cost of refining it to gas/liquid to make a usable product ■■ How much of its embeded energy is used to mine refine clean and transport the stuff ?
You are just ASSUMING oil/coal is cheaper ! You criticise everybody elses economics , but you cant provide any yourself . you dont even know how much oil will cost next month .only what it çost in 73 !
You are the luddite , scared of change , scared that something ‘socialist’ might be positive , scared of admitting when kinetic renewable facilities are built there is no further fuel cost , and scared of admitting oil has a high unaccounted cost in reducing our air quality particularly in cities .
Boom/bust ecomonics are the product of oil based capitalism and speculation .
Growth found by cheap oil is only a temporary spike .
Growth thru renewable energy will be real long term sustainable growth
Investment is needed now for realising in 20 years time .
Thats just the simple truth .
I didn’t say oil like other fossil fuels aren’t finite.I said they aren’t finite for the foreseeable future.Which is all that matters.The next stage after that will be for the relevant future generations to deal with not us or even those following us.
How am I supposedly a luddite when I’ve said I’ve got no problems with a renewables fuelled electric and hydrogen based economy ‘if’ you can make it affordable.You’re not going to make a future energy strategy affordable by crashing the economy now on a bs crusade against fossil fuel use.So go ahead impose your doubling of road fuel taxation as part of that and see what happens.
As for fossil fuel running out do you really think that there would be any short or even medium term future for commercial aviation and calls for airport expansion in that case.
While as for your tidal and wind bollox.If we’re really running out of fuel don’t you think it would be quicker and cheaper and more efficient to just utilise the massive under sea water pressures,to compress air,to turn turbines,to produce electricity,that produces the hydrogen that I’d be happy to run a good old fashioned ICE on.
We’re all pawns on a big chessboard - subject to our gamemasters and players making good, bad, and awful moves on their behalves, but with us paying the penalties for.
It makes sense to use fossile fuels until they become less than plentiful - and THEN move onto expensive renewables.
The fact that energy has been set up to be “expensive” of course acts as a negative catalyst. Lack of cheap power prevents the devlopment OF that cheaper power in the years to come.
You could tell a multinational corporation that “here’s geological survery proof that asteroid 1234-A is made of a mixture of Platinum, Iridium, and Palladium” - they’d pay for the tech to get out there and mine it, perhaps go bust in the process - and by the time the minerals were returned to Earth in bulk - Precious metals would be as cheap as chips, and no one would actually profit from it except the industries supporting the space mining campaign!
“When there’s a gold rush - you don’t rush to join in - you open a shop selling shovels and pickaxes!”
All the time “profit” is the motivator for revolutionary changes - it won’t happen.
WAR brings in real changes - because that’s when scientific advantage and engineering edge trump everything else.
and people call drivers thick its like question time on some threads!
Just filled up at Costco with diesel now it’s 94.9 a litre and they welcome hgv’s too as long as you are a member but might want to drop the trailer outside 
war1974:
and people call drivers thick its like question time on some threads!
They’ve not invited me on a R4 or BBC chat show - 'cos I’m anti labour. 
I don’t represent a “more desired diverse audience” you see.
(I’m white, a floating voter, pay taxes I can’t get out of, always vote, not afraid to speak plain English despite it being politically incorrect, and desire more positive politics rather than the “slag off the other guy” kind.)