You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 9 2026 3.33pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn


Page 83 of 279 < 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 >
Stuk Flag Top half 19 Jan 16 4.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 3.48pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 3.08pm

Solar panels are pretty useless. A whole house would cost between £8K and £16K to do and only save you about £70-100 per year on your electricity bill.

Even if every single house in the UK was covered with them it'd achieve less than 20% of the energy required.


At present, but like most things, the more produced the cheaper it becomes.

How many houses are there in the uk? Even at 15% of energy reqd, it's still a lot when extrapolated nationally

At present and in the past, it's not getting cheaper or more efficient to install/have Solar (and that's when they're subsidised). We simply don't have the climate to make either happen.

They also need renewing after roughly 35 years.

Solar is good for desert like climates.

 

Optimistic as ever
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 19 Jan 16 4.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.32pm

There are many governmental and independent reviews which state that Trident is the best nuclear deterrent option available to the UK and appears to be very effective in a number of situations and for a number of targets.

Where did you get your 'evidence' that Trident is ineffectual?

Its the only option available to the UK. The UK lacks long range missile and solid fuel technologies suitable for intercontinental ballistic missiles, and developing that capacity and deploying it, would probably take longer than the life span of Trident solution.

With only three Trident submarines proposed, coverage is always going to be the problem. They'd need to change entirely how the submarine system is deployed and used, which ultimately would raise the question of why not simply use Astute class submarines with nuclear armed cruise missiles? Especially given that we could have gone down this route when replacing the Hunter Killer submarines (although this maybe down to the US not wanting to sell the UK Nuclear capable Cruise missiles, preferring to tie them into the Polaris system).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 5.19pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 4.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 3.48pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 3.08pm

Solar panels are pretty useless. A whole house would cost between £8K and £16K to do and only save you about £70-100 per year on your electricity bill.

Even if every single house in the UK was covered with them it'd achieve less than 20% of the energy required.


At present, but like most things, the more produced the cheaper it becomes.

How many houses are there in the uk? Even at 15% of energy reqd, it's still a lot when extrapolated nationally

At present and in the past, it's not getting cheaper or more efficient to install/have Solar (and that's when they're subsidised). We simply don't have the climate to make either happen.

They also need renewing after roughly 35 years.

Solar is good for desert like climates.


As part of the eu, we could invest in spanish solar farms.

As with everything, investment in r+d is crucial.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 5.29pm

Trident ...
I'd say investment in the (currently be underinvested) armed forces would be better towards making us safer against threats to our security. Proliferation would surely mean other countries would want to follow suit.
The more states that have them, the more certain it is they will be used. Britain can set an example by unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It takes a disproportionate share of the nation's defence budget.
We are more likely to be engaged in low-level warfare in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. To meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend more on conventional forces and properly equip them.
Possession of nuclear weapons is an outmoded virility symbol. Countries like Spain, Canada and Australia do without them and have as much global influence as Britain.


Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 5.45pm)

 
matt_himself Flag Matataland 19 Jan 16 6.26pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.29pm

Trident ...
I'd say investment in the (currently be underinvested) armed forces would be better towards making us safer against threats to our security. Proliferation would surely mean other countries would want to follow suit.
The more states that have them, the more certain it is they will be used. Britain can set an example by unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It takes a disproportionate share of the nation's defence budget.
We are more likely to be engaged in low-level warfare in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. To meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend more on conventional forces and properly equip them.
Possession of nuclear weapons is an outmoded virility symbol. Countries like Spain, Canada and Australia do without them and have as much global influence as Britain.


Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 5.45pm)


It's a shame that Iran, North Korea and Russia don't think that nuclear weapons are irrelevant and until they, and similar nations, do we need a deterrent.

Twenty five years ago, people were saying that the need for armed forces was over and missiles were the way in which warfare would be conducted in the future. Events change and giving up our nuclear deterrent in twenty years could be viewed as a folly if a confident China has a new regime in charge who view their territorial scope differently to what it is now.

Spain, Canada and Australia are nowhere near as influential as the UK. Pure delusion to think they are.

Edited by matt_himself (19 Jan 2016 6.39pm)

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Bert the Head Flag Epsom 19 Jan 16 6.35pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.29pm

Trident ...
I'd say investment in the (currently be underinvested) armed forces would be better towards making us safer against threats to our security. Proliferation would surely mean other countries would want to follow suit.
The more states that have them, the more certain it is they will be used. Britain can set an example by unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It takes a disproportionate share of the nation's defence budget.
We are more likely to be engaged in low-level warfare in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. To meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend more on conventional forces and properly equip them.
Possession of nuclear weapons is an outmoded virility symbol. Countries like Spain, Canada and Australia do without them and have as much global influence as Britain.


Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 5.45pm)

Well said.

If we don't accept that our place in the world has changed and adjust gracefully and in Europe, we will go the same way as the Austrian Empire and have as much influence on the world stage.

A great article by Frankie Boyle in the Guardian about Corbyn
[Link]


 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 6.43pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 6.26pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.29pm

Trident ...
I'd say investment in the (currently be underinvested) armed forces would be better towards making us safer against threats to our security. Proliferation would surely mean other countries would want to follow suit.
The more states that have them, the more certain it is they will be used. Britain can set an example by unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It takes a disproportionate share of the nation's defence budget.
We are more likely to be engaged in low-level warfare in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. To meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend more on conventional forces and properly equip them.
Possession of nuclear weapons is an outmoded virility symbol. Countries like Spain, Canada and Australia do without them and have as much global influence as Britain.


Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 5.45pm)


It's a shame that Iran, North Korea and Russia don't think that nuclear weapons are irrelevant and until they, and similar nations, do we need a deterrent.

Twenty five years ago, people were saying that the need for armed forces was over and missiles were the way in which warfare would be conducted in the future. Events change and giving up our nuclear deterrent in twenty years could be viewed as a folly if a confident China has a new regime in charge who view their territorial scope differently to what it is now.

Spain, Canada and Australia are nowhere near as influential as the UK. Pure delusion to think they are.

Ask the blogger who wrote the above to respond on my points.


Standard response Matt.

I think that money spent on Trident would be best spent elsewhere.

Do you not think that the fact that the USA would have a final say on whether we deliver a nuclear payload may undermine us a bit?

Do you not think that the aim of the ultimate reduction of nuclear weapons is wrong?

Are Spain, Australia and Canada more at risk than us because they don't have nuclear capability?

Why are you like the f***ing spanish inquisition and when asked questions yourself say 'we'll leave it there'

I'm beginning to wish that I maintained silence with you. I forgot how droll this all is. Just accept I have my opinion and reasons for it and you have yours. You are obsessed. I pity you ( )

 
-TUX- Flag Alphabettispaghetti 19 Jan 16 7.12pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 18 Jan 2016 9.43pm

Quote -TUX- at 18 Jan 2016 9.15pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 10.43pm

I do feel sorry for myself sometimes. Completely unable to make my own mind up on any decision unless I am told by the politicians and media what to think.

Thank god there's a group of people, many of whom frequent this forum, that can save people like me from ourselves.

Anyway, back to nuclear weapons. The point of having them is so that they're never used. Do you think Kruschev would have pulled back in 62 if America couldn't match the russkies?

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (17 Jan 2016 10.44pm)


There's nothing to think about as nothing happened. And it never will.


Exactamundo

No, not really.
Who would want to rule over a planet that has been completely destroyed/contaminated for decades by global nuclear warfare meaning they/their family will have to live in a cave for the rest of their days? No-one.
A 'small fish' having an impact in a global event (that will never happen) between the 'big fish' is laughable.
We don't need it.



 

Time to move forward together.
matt_himself Flag Matataland 19 Jan 16 7.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 6.43pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 6.26pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.29pm

Trident ...
I'd say investment in the (currently be underinvested) armed forces would be better towards making us safer against threats to our security. Proliferation would surely mean other countries would want to follow suit.
The more states that have them, the more certain it is they will be used. Britain can set an example by unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It takes a disproportionate share of the nation's defence budget.
We are more likely to be engaged in low-level warfare in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. To meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend more on conventional forces and properly equip them.
Possession of nuclear weapons is an outmoded virility symbol. Countries like Spain, Canada and Australia do without them and have as much global influence as Britain.


Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 5.45pm)


It's a shame that Iran, North Korea and Russia don't think that nuclear weapons are irrelevant and until they, and similar nations, do we need a deterrent.

Twenty five years ago, people were saying that the need for armed forces was over and missiles were the way in which warfare would be conducted in the future. Events change and giving up our nuclear deterrent in twenty years could be viewed as a folly if a confident China has a new regime in charge who view their territorial scope differently to what it is now.

Spain, Canada and Australia are nowhere near as influential as the UK. Pure delusion to think they are.

Ask the blogger who wrote the above to respond on my points.


Standard response Matt.

I think that money spent on Trident would be best spent elsewhere.

Do you not think that the fact that the USA would have a final say on whether we deliver a nuclear payload may undermine us a bit?

Do you not think that the aim of the ultimate reduction of nuclear weapons is wrong?

Are Spain, Australia and Canada more at risk than us because they don't have nuclear capability?

Why are you like the f***ing spanish inquisition and when asked questions yourself say 'we'll leave it there'

I'm beginning to wish that I maintained silence with you. I forgot how droll this all is. Just accept I have my opinion and reasons for it and you have yours. You are obsessed. I pity you ( )


Your arguments don't stack up. You support Corbyn's plan to replace Trident with a useles conventional system purely for the purposes of keeping Unite happy.

We need a unclear deterrent. We need it to ensure the likes of Russia or Iran won't use theirs against us.

Should nuclear weapons be reduced. In an ideal world, yes. However, we live in a far from ideal world, one where we see Iranian nuclear scientists dancing around in labs after making a breakthrough and North Koreans celebrating missile tests. Are those nations seeking to reduce their nuclear armoury and do you think that if the UK reduced its stockpile unilaterally they would suddenly take heed and reduce their weapons stockpile? Or would they see it as a sign of weakness from the UK?

Spain, Australia and Canada are not in the same place as us. We are more at risk because of political, economic and location reasons than them.

I answer questions, you don't and you have a track record of answering questions with questions or twisting subjects or using emotive imaginary to back up your pie in the sky student style Utopianism.

You don't have to respond to me, that is your right but the fact is that you do and then moan about it.

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 8.19pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 7.42pm

We need a unclear deterrent. We need it to ensure the likes of Russia or Iran won't use theirs against us.


Which is exactly what trident is in my mind.


Haven't you read / seen the news about Iran in the last couple of days?

I support the fact that Corbyn wants to maintain employment in Barrow.

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 8.23pm)

 
matt_himself Flag Matataland 19 Jan 16 8.48pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 8.19pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 7.42pm

We need a unclear deterrent. We need it to ensure the likes of Russia or Iran won't use theirs against us.


Which is exactly what trident is in my mind.


Haven't you read / seen the news about Iran in the last couple of days?

I support the fact that Corbyn wants to maintain employment in Barrow.

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 8.23pm)


Do you trust Iran? Do you think that Iran has suddenly seen the light and wants to be 'cooperative partners' with the West? Do you think that nearly forty years of state sponsored anti US and anti Western indoctrination will be swept away with the removal of sanctions and its population will suddenly become siblings to us? Do you believe that the theocracy in the country will be persuaded to accept Israel and, crucially, stop meddling in the affairs of neighbouring nations or one's in which they perceive that the Sunni population is being marginalised? Do you think that if there is even a small concession to West, giving women a few rights, that the ultra conservatives will attempt a coup and try to remove the modernising forces?

The view on Corbyn and supporting workers in Barrow is bizarre. Supporting Corbyn's proposal is supporting the building of something essentially useless, something that will cost billions and whose central aim is to keep Unite happy (something you have not commented on).

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 9.02pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 8.48pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 8.19pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 7.42pm

We need a unclear deterrent. We need it to ensure the likes of Russia or Iran won't use theirs against us.


Which is exactly what trident is in my mind.


Haven't you read / seen the news about Iran in the last couple of days?

I support the fact that Corbyn wants to maintain employment in Barrow.

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 8.23pm)


Do you trust Iran? Do you think that Iran has suddenly seen the light and wants to be 'cooperative partners' with the West? Do you think that nearly forty years of state sponsored anti US and anti Western indoctrination will be swept away with the removal of sanctions and its population will suddenly become siblings to us? Do you believe that the theocracy in the country will be persuaded to accept Israel and, crucially, stop meddling in the affairs of neighbouring nations or one's in which they perceive that the Sunni population is being marginalised? Do you think that if there is even a small concession to West, giving women a few rights, that the ultra conservatives will attempt a coup and try to remove the modernising forces?

The view on Corbyn and supporting workers in Barrow is bizarre. Supporting Corbyn's proposal is supporting the building of something essentially useless, something that will cost billions and whose central aim is to keep Unite happy (something you have not commented on).


I do trust Iran.

Youdon't think Corbyn is right to support the workforce in Barrow then?
For the last time, Corbyn has not proposed what you say, see the transcript from earlier on in the thread about Marr wrongly saying Corbyn proposed that.

 
matt_himself Flag Matataland 19 Jan 16 9.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.02pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 8.48pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 8.19pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 7.42pm

We need a unclear deterrent. We need it to ensure the likes of Russia or Iran won't use theirs against us.


Which is exactly what trident is in my mind.


Haven't you read / seen the news about Iran in the last couple of days?

I support the fact that Corbyn wants to maintain employment in Barrow.

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 8.23pm)


Do you trust Iran? Do you think that Iran has suddenly seen the light and wants to be 'cooperative partners' with the West? Do you think that nearly forty years of state sponsored anti US and anti Western indoctrination will be swept away with the removal of sanctions and its population will suddenly become siblings to us? Do you believe that the theocracy in the country will be persuaded to accept Israel and, crucially, stop meddling in the affairs of neighbouring nations or one's in which they perceive that the Sunni population is being marginalised? Do you think that if there is even a small concession to West, giving women a few rights, that the ultra conservatives will attempt a coup and try to remove the modernising forces?

The view on Corbyn and supporting workers in Barrow is bizarre. Supporting Corbyn's proposal is supporting the building of something essentially useless, something that will cost billions and whose central aim is to keep Unite happy (something you have not commented on).


I do trust Iran.

Youdon't think Corbyn is right to support the workforce in Barrow then?
For the last time, Corbyn has not proposed what you say, see the transcript from earlier on in the thread about Marr wrongly saying Corbyn proposed that.


I think that 'I do trust Iran' will come back to haunt you.

Why are you sticking up for Iran? To oppose me or because you couldn't respond on the above? I would have thought that Iran represents everything you hate - theocratic dictatorship, suppressor of rights, banning trade unions, forcing homosexuals into gender realignment, etc.

With regards e workforce in Barrow, the best way for Corbyn to support them would be to do the right thing and guarantee their jobs by renewing our much needed nuclear deterrent.

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 10.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 9.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.02pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 8.48pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 8.19pm

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 7.42pm

We need a unclear deterrent. We need it to ensure the likes of Russia or Iran won't use theirs against us.


Which is exactly what trident is in my mind.


Haven't you read / seen the news about Iran in the last couple of days?

I support the fact that Corbyn wants to maintain employment in Barrow.

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 8.23pm)


Do you trust Iran? Do you think that Iran has suddenly seen the light and wants to be 'cooperative partners' with the West? Do you think that nearly forty years of state sponsored anti US and anti Western indoctrination will be swept away with the removal of sanctions and its population will suddenly become siblings to us? Do you believe that the theocracy in the country will be persuaded to accept Israel and, crucially, stop meddling in the affairs of neighbouring nations or one's in which they perceive that the Sunni population is being marginalised? Do you think that if there is even a small concession to West, giving women a few rights, that the ultra conservatives will attempt a coup and try to remove the modernising forces?

The view on Corbyn and supporting workers in Barrow is bizarre. Supporting Corbyn's proposal is supporting the building of something essentially useless, something that will cost billions and whose central aim is to keep Unite happy (something you have not commented on).


I do trust Iran.

Youdon't think Corbyn is right to support the workforce in Barrow then?
For the last time, Corbyn has not proposed what you say, see the transcript from earlier on in the thread about Marr wrongly saying Corbyn proposed that.


I think that 'I do trust Iran' will come back to haunt you.

Why are you sticking up for Iran? To oppose me or because you couldn't respond on the above? I would have thought that Iran represents everything you hate - theocratic dictatorship, suppressor of rights, banning trade unions, forcing homosexuals into gender realignment, etc.

With regards e workforce in Barrow, the best way for Corbyn to support them would be to do the right thing and guarantee their jobs by renewing our much needed nuclear deterrent.

I think Iran are rather pleased that they have negotiated with the USA to end trade embargoes etc and would be foolish to do anything to disrupt this.
Negotiations to halt their nuclear 'adventure' have worked. Better than bombing them into submission which has been ever so successful elsewhere.(That was sarcasm before you take it at face value)

If Corbyn supported trident, no doubt you would say he had nobackbone for going against his principles.

Talking of looking after workers ... [Link]

 
matt_himself Flag Matataland 20 Jan 16 6.37am

Let's leave. 'I do trust Iran' for another day.

On another note, more bad polling news for Jezza:

[Link]

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 20 Jan 16 9.33am

Could there ever be a situation where we would be involved in a potential nuclear conflict without the US being heavily involved already? And if against Russia their missiles and bombers would be sited on Western/Central European and perhaps British soil again anyway.

We really don't need nuclear weapons these days. Who would we use them against? Just incredibly expensive military bling.

 

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 20 Jan 16 9.33am

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.29pm

Trident ...
I'd say investment in the (currently be underinvested) armed forces would be better towards making us safer against threats to our security. Proliferation would surely mean other countries would want to follow suit.
The more states that have them, the more certain it is they will be used. Britain can set an example by unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It takes a disproportionate share of the nation's defence budget.
We are more likely to be engaged in low-level warfare in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. To meet the challenge of asymmetric warfare, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend more on conventional forces and properly equip them.
Possession of nuclear weapons is an outmoded virility symbol. Countries like Spain, Canada and Australia do without them and have as much global influence as Britain.


Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 5.45pm)

Thing to remember going into future generations is that Nuclear nations will increase, not decrease, and the countries that are likely looking at nuclear capability are looking for an edge to up their states capacity for negotiation and regional / global influence.

Iran and Saudi will likely be the main candidates for becoming nuclear, irrespective of efforts to contain them, and they will use that to establish greater influence on a regional and global basis (possibly even to levy a place on the security council).

Whilst I don't see Trident as a solution to the proliferation or as a deterant this kind of capacity represents a significant political leverage for a nation (even if the weapons are never used). In particular a second nuclear power in the middle east would represent a very big power shift, and one that Israel would be very concerned about.

The problem of nuclear disarmnement is that you have to have nuclear capacity to engage and influence that - Countries will only disarm when it represents a significant benefit to those nations. I doubt Iran or Saudi would use nuclear weapons, without a threat to their existence, but they would benefit enourmously from the political power that comes from being part of the nuclear club.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Stuk Flag Top half 20 Jan 16 5.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.19pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 4.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 3.48pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 3.08pm

Solar panels are pretty useless. A whole house would cost between £8K and £16K to do and only save you about £70-100 per year on your electricity bill.

Even if every single house in the UK was covered with them it'd achieve less than 20% of the energy required.


At present, but like most things, the more produced the cheaper it becomes.

How many houses are there in the uk? Even at 15% of energy reqd, it's still a lot when extrapolated nationally

At present and in the past, it's not getting cheaper or more efficient to install/have Solar (and that's when they're subsidised). We simply don't have the climate to make either happen.

They also need renewing after roughly 35 years.

Solar is good for desert like climates.


As part of the eu, we could invest in spanish solar farms.

As with everything, investment in r+d is crucial.

Your solar plan was to save the jobs of the defunct Trident workers should this country go to the dogs (elect Corbyn that is). How is investing in Spanish solar farms going to keep people from the Clyde in employment?


 

Optimistic as ever
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 20 Jan 16 5.24pm

Quote Stuk at 20 Jan 2016 5.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.19pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 4.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 3.48pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 3.08pm

Solar panels are pretty useless. A whole house would cost between £8K and £16K to do and only save you about £70-100 per year on your electricity bill.

Even if every single house in the UK was covered with them it'd achieve less than 20% of the energy required.


At present, but like most things, the more produced the cheaper it becomes.

How many houses are there in the uk? Even at 15% of energy reqd, it's still a lot when extrapolated nationally

At present and in the past, it's not getting cheaper or more efficient to install/have Solar (and that's when they're subsidised). We simply don't have the climate to make either happen.

They also need renewing after roughly 35 years.

Solar is good for desert like climates.


As part of the eu, we could invest in spanish solar farms.

As with everything, investment in r+d is crucial.

Your solar plan was to save the jobs of the defunct Trident workers should this country go to the dogs (elect Corbyn that is). How is investing in Spanish solar farms going to keep people from the Clyde in employment?



The solarwas an exampleof alternative manufacturing, we moved on but comntinued to discuss hiow solar could be beneficial. The parts could still be manufactured here.

 
Stuk Flag Top half 21 Jan 16 2.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jan 2016 5.24pm

Quote Stuk at 20 Jan 2016 5.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 5.19pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 4.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 3.48pm

Quote Stuk at 19 Jan 2016 3.08pm

Solar panels are pretty useless. A whole house would cost between £8K and £16K to do and only save you about £70-100 per year on your electricity bill.

Even if every single house in the UK was covered with them it'd achieve less than 20% of the energy required.


At present, but like most things, the more produced the cheaper it becomes.

How many houses are there in the uk? Even at 15% of energy reqd, it's still a lot when extrapolated nationally

At present and in the past, it's not getting cheaper or more efficient to install/have Solar (and that's when they're subsidised). We simply don't have the climate to make either happen.

They also need renewing after roughly 35 years.

Solar is good for desert like climates.


As part of the eu, we could invest in spanish solar farms.

As with everything, investment in r+d is crucial.

Your solar plan was to save the jobs of the defunct Trident workers should this country go to the dogs (elect Corbyn that is). How is investing in Spanish solar farms going to keep people from the Clyde in employment?



The solarwas an exampleof alternative manufacturing, we moved on but comntinued to discuss hiow solar could be beneficial. The parts could still be manufactured here.

We wouldn't be competitive, and that would drive up the cost of solar even more. Or more accurately result in a load of stuff we'd have to sell at a loss.

 

Optimistic as ever
Page 83 of 279 < 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn