notwell Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 How come france has a larger population than the UK but puts out half our emissions ? Nuclear stations.[/quote It's the way forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Nuclear power stations are great when nothing goes wrong and you have somewhere to dump the waste, but with all these tsunamis, terrorists and past accidents at power stations, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence of everything being ok in the future, but that's just my view and someone else will likely see it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Isn't Phil Gawne just passing on what the "World Leaders" have agreed in Paris the other day? Can people not read? Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger when they don't like what they are being told? Some on here probably hate their postman because he brings the utility bills. It must be this weather we're having, because some people are getting wetter by the day ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 .... Says Gawne. Lolz! This should be good...... Punchlines form a queue please. I doubt whether the IOM government is measuring 'fuel poverty' on the island much less doing anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I thought natural gas was a fossil fuel? If it is, what are the supposed benefits of one fossil fuel, (gas), over another fossil fuel, (oil)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 It's benefits were that natural gas was going to be miles cheaper when MG first converted and started bringing it in. "Lovely and warm - as warm as you want" the Manx Radio adverts went. Then the bills arrived. Twats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 but pollution wise oil and gas are much the same? or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Isn't Phil Gawne just passing on what the "World Leaders" have agreed in Paris the other day? Can people not read? Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger when they don't like what they are being told? Some on here probably hate their postman because he brings the utility bills. It must be this weather we're having, because some people are getting wetter by the day ! Any overall advantage of using Gas instead of oil is still debatable, and the impact, if any, of outfitting a few council houses on the Isle of Man, on greenhouse gases emissions would be infinitesimal. Gawne's duty should be to the benefit of the Manx people, not Manx Gas, (who are only Manx in name anyway). Instead he is consigning more people to fuel poverty and if as you say, he is just a messenger, then what's the point of him having a ministerial role in the first place. '' Some on here'' have every rite to voice their opinions and concerns. ''The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, a far more potent global warming gas than CO2. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions. Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors . One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer . And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments '' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Isn't Phil Gawne just passing on what the "World Leaders" have agreed in Paris the other day? Can people not read? Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger when they don't like what they are being told? Some on here probably hate their postman because he brings the utility bills. It must be this weather we're having, because some people are getting wetter by the day ! Any overall advantage of using Gas instead of oil is still debatable, and the impact, if any, of outfitting a few council houses on the Isle of Man, on greenhouse gases emissions would be infinitesimal. Gawne's duty should be to the benefit of the Manx people, not Manx Gas, (who are only Manx in name anyway). Instead he is consigning more people to fuel poverty and if as you say, he is just a messenger, then what's the point of him having a ministerial role in the first place. '' Some on here'' have every rite to voice their opinions and concerns. ''The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, a far more potent global warming gas than CO2. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions. Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors . One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer . And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments '' But Phil is still only saying what is going to happen down the line. Nothing an MHK can say or do will change what has been decided by the Big Boys. I'm not sure what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 If what you suggest is true, what Phil G is suggesting is only what has just been discussed/agreed. In the big picture it will/would take years to implement. Yet he suggests as though we should start to apply this tomorrow. Most people on this island are currently living for today, certainly as far as day to day and domestic expenses are concerned. He needs to realise that, as do the rest of our out-of-touch politicians. As long as the global price of oil and the monopoly price of gas on this Island remain so distant he will continue to be laughed out of the room. See the comments on iomnewstoday to confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Isn't Phil Gawne just passing on what the "World Leaders" have agreed in Paris the other day? Can people not read? Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger when they don't like what they are being told? Some on here probably hate their postman because he brings the utility bills. It must be this weather we're having, because some people are getting wetter by the day ! Any overall advantage of using Gas instead of oil is still debatable, and the impact, if any, of outfitting a few council houses on the Isle of Man, on greenhouse gases emissions would be infinitesimal. Gawne's duty should be to the benefit of the Manx people, not Manx Gas, (who are only Manx in name anyway). Instead he is consigning more people to fuel poverty and if as you say, he is just a messenger, then what's the point of him having a ministerial role in the first place. '' Some on here'' have every rite to voice their opinions and concerns. ''The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, a far more potent global warming gas than CO2. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions. Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors . One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer . And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments '' But Phil is still only saying what is going to happen down the line. Nothing an MHK can say or do will change what has been decided by the Big Boys. I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm saying that imo, given the current situation of Manx Gas being given pretty much a free hand by the OFT and IOMG to fleece it's customers, that his comments are wholly inappropriate at best. When you consider that so many house owners who are financially in a position to change to oil are doing just that, then where does Gawne get off on lecturing the wonders of Gas to those who have no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 If what you suggest is true, what Phil G is suggesting is only what has just been discussed/agreed. Exactly. The decision to switch to gas in social housing must have been made some time ago yet the Paris climate conference was only a few days ago. Seems like a good way of trying to defer the responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Isn't Phil Gawne just passing on what the "World Leaders" have agreed in Paris the other day? Can people not read? Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger when they don't like what they are being told? Some on here probably hate their postman because he brings the utility bills. It must be this weather we're having, because some people are getting wetter by the day ! I have to say that it is ME that can't read. I misread the Paris agreement and now see that they are predicting the end for GAS heating and cooking. I got it ass about face and have ended up with egg on mine. I thought, in my haste to defend him, yet again, that he was pushing the same message. now I see that I was totally WRONG and so apologize for my error. Sorry. Puts top back on vodka bottle and scurries off with tail between legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Nuclear power stations are great when nothing goes wrong and you have somewhere to dump the waste, but with all these tsunamis, terrorists and past accidents at power stations, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence of everything being ok in the future, but that's just my view and someone else will likely see it differently. When you factor in decommissioning costs, it's expensive. The Frogs use it as they have few natural resources. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessTickle Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 With the boundary changes coming in for the next election will Gawne be hoping to get votes in Colby? I really hope he comes knocking at my door. Wonder how offensive I can actually be... Think you will need to move to Castletown and Malew to have Gawne knocking on your door Though, depending where you are in Colby, you might just be lucky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.