Now we are starting to see the "alleged" party investigation.
Isn't having full confidence in Allegra Stratton prejudging the investigation?
Isn't having full confidence in Allegra Stratton prejudging the investigation?
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
it does not matter if you voted for the conservative party or not, you don't deserve to be lied to.
Maybe, but we rarely get what we deserve in this life. For well over half a century our policians have been continuously lying to us, Blair even famously re-spelt as Bliar after his protestations.
Remember cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken and his "Sword of Truth" claim, the same sword that impaled him when he was sent to jail.
Anthony Eden and Suez. Harold Wilson and his lies about our reserves. The list is endless.
All that said, I still think the current fuss about a staff party silly and pointless. Some slack should be cut since it's no different from what that much of the rest of the country did and which has been publicised. It's being human.
The police are never going to arrest the PM over this and even if they did and it came to a court, he would undoubtedly win,
I've pored through the acts measure by measure and failed to find any mention of the word party. As I told you, it's only about separation and work places are specifically excluded from the legislation. The staff were in their place of work and one could ever prove that there was no work connection to their presence.
Yes it was reprehensible behaviour, but that's nothing new. Politics everywhere has always been a dirty and dishonest business, always will be and it will never be cleaned up.
A dictatorship bosses us about.
A democracy bosses us about with a smile.
Either way we lose.
.
Last edited:
the list is endless, may be but BJ's list alone is longer that others added together, to the point that nobody can be sure when he told us the truth about anything anymore.
Yes but the only consumable non recyclable at present is the fibre glass in the blades...and imaginative uses are being found for them. Including flood defences ,foot bridges , artificial reefs for fish .. The recycling energy cost of the steel and other metals is very small. And of course the concrete base remains indefinitely.
If Boris knew about the party and has lied about it for the last week then he needs to go.
If Boris did not know what was going on in his own house, then how can people have confidence in him to run the country so again he needs to go.
Do I think he will, no highly unlikely, he does not strike me as someone that has any kind of moral code. He lies and cheats his way through his public and private life. The rest of his cabinet take their lead from him, the saying a fish rots from the head is very apt for this government.
We must be an absolute laughing stock to decent law abiding countries in the world.
If Boris did not know what was going on in his own house, then how can people have confidence in him to run the country so again he needs to go.
Do I think he will, no highly unlikely, he does not strike me as someone that has any kind of moral code. He lies and cheats his way through his public and private life. The rest of his cabinet take their lead from him, the saying a fish rots from the head is very apt for this government.
We must be an absolute laughing stock to decent law abiding countries in the world.
That was already common knowledge when he was elected as an MP and when he was further elected to be PM, both by members of the public.
So what is the point of protesting now when he acts in accordance with what we all already knew and should have expected?
.
when he was selected to replace TM (a bad PM after Cameron, another bad PM), nobody could have guessed he will be the worst PM ever.
Hoping, against all odds, the typical tory voter momentarily conquer that enormous barrier of stupidity and morbid self interest and see the train crash happening around them?
Since your question JHC directly mirrors the Mike in this following question , and you were trying a Gotcha ... Well read and learn. We actually did that calculation back in 2006. The 2013 paper is particularly germane, as it from the same manufacturer , and while a slightly smaller machine class, the numbers will not be greatly different. Note on shore is always cheaper than off shore in materials . However there is less objection to offshore and size is less of a concern. Wind machines scale very positively
Dear Sara,
Wind turbines are an absolute joke. Has anyone actually figured out the amount of carbon emissions emitted for the entire process from initial construction of the components and land development (construction machinery emissions)? — Mike M.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for this apparent attempt at a “gotcha” question, as it gives me the opportunity to reply with a resounding yes! People have studied, in detail, the amount of carbon pollution emitted during the life of a wind turbine.
In fact, this type of analysis constitutes an entire branch of research known as “life cycle assessment,” with its own handbooks, internationally agreed-upon standards, specialized software, and peer-reviewed journals.
To conduct a life cycle assessment of a wind turbine, or any other product, researchers begin by diagramming each stage of its existence, from manufacturing through end-of-life disposal. Next, they inventory the energy and raw materials consumed at each stage, such as the steel, fiberglass, and plastic needed during a wind turbine’s manufacturing, the diesel burned by ships and trucks in transporting turbine parts from factory to construction site, and the energy used during construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual deconstruction and recycling or disposal.
With this information in hand, researchers calculate the carbon pollution produced during a wind turbine’s life cycle — in other words, its carbon footprint.
Search online for the keywords “life cycle assessment” and “wind turbine” and you’ll retrieve dozens of published papers on this topic. Here’s a non-comprehensive chart of such papers from the past five years:
The carbon footprint of wind turbines
This chart shows how much carbon dioxide, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, can be attributed to a wind turbine during its life from cradle to grave. If you’re wondering about those awkward-sounding “grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent,” or “CO2-eq,” that’s simply a unit that includes both carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as methane.
You can see that the results vary by country, size of turbine, and onshore versus offshore configuration, but all fall within a range of about five to 26 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.
To put those numbers in context, consider the two major fossil-fuel sources of electricity in the United States: natural gas and coal. Power plants that burn natural gas are responsible for 437 to 758 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour — far more than even the most carbon-intensive wind turbine listed above. Coal-fired power plants fare even more poorly in comparison to wind, with estimates ranging from 675 to 1,689 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, depending on the exact technology in question.
There’s another crucial difference between fossil fuels and wind turbines. A coal or natural gas plant burns fuel — and releases carbon dioxide — every moment that it runs. By contrast, most of the carbon pollution generated during a wind turbine’s life occurs during manufacturing. Once it’s up and spinning, the turbine generates close to zero pollution.
What’s more, wind turbines often displace older, dirtier sources that supply power to the electricity grid. For example, after a new wind farm connects to the grid, the grid operator may be able to meet electricity demand without firing up a decades-old, highly polluting coal plant. The result? A cleaner, more climate-friendly electricity grid.
In fact, it’s possible to calculate a carbon “payback” time for a wind turbine: the length of time it takes a turbine to produce enough clean electricity to make up for the carbon pollution generated during manufacture. One study put that payback time at seven months — not bad considering the typical 20- to 25-year lifespan of a wind turbine. Bottom line: Wind turbines are far from a joke. For the climate, they’re a deal too good to pass up.
— Sara
Dear Sara,
Wind turbines are an absolute joke. Has anyone actually figured out the amount of carbon emissions emitted for the entire process from initial construction of the components and land development (construction machinery emissions)? — Mike M.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for this apparent attempt at a “gotcha” question, as it gives me the opportunity to reply with a resounding yes! People have studied, in detail, the amount of carbon pollution emitted during the life of a wind turbine.
In fact, this type of analysis constitutes an entire branch of research known as “life cycle assessment,” with its own handbooks, internationally agreed-upon standards, specialized software, and peer-reviewed journals.
To conduct a life cycle assessment of a wind turbine, or any other product, researchers begin by diagramming each stage of its existence, from manufacturing through end-of-life disposal. Next, they inventory the energy and raw materials consumed at each stage, such as the steel, fiberglass, and plastic needed during a wind turbine’s manufacturing, the diesel burned by ships and trucks in transporting turbine parts from factory to construction site, and the energy used during construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual deconstruction and recycling or disposal.
With this information in hand, researchers calculate the carbon pollution produced during a wind turbine’s life cycle — in other words, its carbon footprint.
Search online for the keywords “life cycle assessment” and “wind turbine” and you’ll retrieve dozens of published papers on this topic. Here’s a non-comprehensive chart of such papers from the past five years:
The carbon footprint of wind turbines
| Study year | Location | Configuration | Rated power (megawatts) | grams of CO2-eq per kWh |
| 2019 | Texas, USA | onshore | 2 | 4.9 |
| 2018 | United Kingdom | onshore | 1.5 | 11.8 |
| 2018 | China | offshore | 3.6 | 25.5 |
| 2018 | China | onshore | 1.5, 0.75 | 8.7 |
| 2016 | Europe | onshore | 2.3 | 6 |
| 2016 | Europe | onshore | 3.2 | 5 |
| 2016 | Europe | offshore | 4 | 10.9 |
| 2016 | Europe | offshore | 6 | 7.8 |
| 2013 | global | onshore | 2 | 8 |
| 2012 | – | – | 2 | 9.7 |
| 2012 | – | – | 1.8 | 8.8 |
You can see that the results vary by country, size of turbine, and onshore versus offshore configuration, but all fall within a range of about five to 26 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.
To put those numbers in context, consider the two major fossil-fuel sources of electricity in the United States: natural gas and coal. Power plants that burn natural gas are responsible for 437 to 758 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour — far more than even the most carbon-intensive wind turbine listed above. Coal-fired power plants fare even more poorly in comparison to wind, with estimates ranging from 675 to 1,689 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, depending on the exact technology in question.
There’s another crucial difference between fossil fuels and wind turbines. A coal or natural gas plant burns fuel — and releases carbon dioxide — every moment that it runs. By contrast, most of the carbon pollution generated during a wind turbine’s life occurs during manufacturing. Once it’s up and spinning, the turbine generates close to zero pollution.
What’s more, wind turbines often displace older, dirtier sources that supply power to the electricity grid. For example, after a new wind farm connects to the grid, the grid operator may be able to meet electricity demand without firing up a decades-old, highly polluting coal plant. The result? A cleaner, more climate-friendly electricity grid.
In fact, it’s possible to calculate a carbon “payback” time for a wind turbine: the length of time it takes a turbine to produce enough clean electricity to make up for the carbon pollution generated during manufacture. One study put that payback time at seven months — not bad considering the typical 20- to 25-year lifespan of a wind turbine. Bottom line: Wind turbines are far from a joke. For the climate, they’re a deal too good to pass up.
— Sara
Last edited:
After his much publicised performance as the worst Foreign Secretary ever, everybody knew so there's no excuse.
It's a democracy, after that a majority made him an MP and another majority made him PM.
Too late to protest now, we'll have to wait until the next GE.
.
But we'll still have to wait for the next GE. Just swapping Boris for another of his party won't solve anything.
.
I wholly disagree with you there.
I have for years said that he should never be PM, indeed, never a mayor nor an MP. Quite what has panned out is awful, appalling, and I would not have predicted many of the twists and turns. But on a plain, do you have any trust in this person basis, my answer has always been "No".
I dont know who they'd choose, possibly Raab or Sunak, but it's hypothetical, Johnson isn't going anywhere.
.