North Sea Oil Workers

[pod]

On ‎26‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 10:22 PM, The Real Zippy said:

 Hope that wanker Ian Wood is hit in the pocket as a result.

 That's why they never offered me a job with them again.  

Edited July 29, 2016 by pod

[oaksoft]

22 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Yeah but nuclear is an efficient and effective way of generating electricity and with oil fired power stations being taken offline over the next few years I can't see any trend being reversed either - especially not if there is another global recession. 

As for plastic pipes  my trade really hasn't changed in the 30 years I've been in it. Most of the work is still done using carbon steel, stainless steel, or if its in food production a number of different types of alloy. But I can excuse your confusion if you think galvanised steel looks like concrete 

Nuclear is hugely expensive, exceptionally dangerous, as we already know from Chernobyl and Japan, and we dont know how to securely deal with the waste. Add to that the fact that it is not renewable and you have to question its worth.

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Nuclear is hugely expensive, exceptionally dangerous, as we already know from Chernobyl and Japan, and we dont know how to securely deal with the waste. Add to that the fact that it is not renewable and you have to question its worth.

Surely, and I'm taking a chance here, nuclear power has some worth as it powers oodles of kettles and TV's, among other things? 

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

Short term pain v long term gain. The ones who have gone don't believe the threats involved in the former justify the perceived benefits of the latter and those in favour of the latter - all the other board members - won.

In simple terms, EDF cant afford it and the French government cant afford it either. EDF are talking about selling assets to fund their share. It sounds like a desperate all or nothing gamble by all concerned.

The UK government are so desperate for the work that they have agreed to pay twice as much for the energy as it should cost for 35 years just to keep investors interested.

Personally I hope this never sees the light of day. Nuclear energy should be left in the past.

[pod]

and nobodies come up with anything better. 

[oaksoft]

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Surely, and I'm taking a chance here, nuclear power has some worth as it powers oodles of kettles and TV's, among other things? 

It has no Net worth in my opinion. The downsides are so serious they cancel out all benefits.

Edited July 29, 2016 by oaksoft

[pod]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

In simple terms, EDF cant afford it and the French government cant afford it either. EDF are talking about selling assets to fund their share. It sounds like a desperate all or nothing gamble by all concerned.

The UK government are so desperate for the work that they have agreed to pay twice as much for the energy as it should cost for 35 years just to keep investors interested.

Personally I hope this never sees the light of day. Nuclear energy should be left in the past.

What, along with the coal, oil and gas. 

[faraway saint]

Just now, oaksoft said:

Net worth.

Oh, ok, let me try to put another angle on it, the cost of building & maintaining this power source must be outweighed by the power they produce and profits they will generate? 

[pod]

Just now, faraway saint said:

Oh, ok, let me try to put another angle on it, the cost of building & maintaining this power source must be outweighed by the power they produce and profits they will generate? 

There's me thinking it was electricity they generated.

[oaksoft]

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

Oh, ok, let me try to put another angle on it, the cost of building & maintaining this power source must be outweighed by the power they produce and profits they will generate? 

This isnt just a financial argument for me.

[faraway saint]

Just now, pod said:

There's me thinking it was electricity they generated.

Never seen that one coming. 

Where's another hook? 

[oaksoft]

2 minutes ago, pod said:

What, along with the coal, oil and gas. 

If we dont find a way of getting away from non renewable power sources then we are screwed. 

[pod]

I'll let you of the hook this time.

[oaksoft]

7 minutes ago, pod said:

and nobodies come up with anything better. 

Dont be silly. Even coal, gas and oil are preferable to nuclear.

On almost every level.

Edited July 29, 2016 by oaksoft

[pod]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

If we dont find a way of getting away from non renewable power sources then we are screwed. 

Tried waves, still haven't got it right.  Wind turbine, don't work if no wind or to much wind. If solar panels were a solution, why don't they incorporated then in every home build.

Hydro is one way.

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Dont be silly. Even coal, gas and oil are preferable to nuclear.

On almost every level.

Don't be silly. Not if you work in the nuclear industry. 

[oaksoft]

8 minutes ago, pod said:

Tried waves, still haven't got it right.  Wind turbine, don't work if no wind or to much wind. If solar panels were a solution, why don't they incorporated then in every home build.

The wind turbine problem isnt one of varying wind. Its lack of storage.

Solar power IS part of the solution. They are not incorporated into every house because of cost. They should be legislated to do so though.

The problem with Hydro is one of suitable location. I remember an expert on this explaining how we had very few suitable locations for big stations. Maybe we need to be more creative and think about micro hydro.

The biggest problem our society has it that we havent woken up yet to the necessity of pursuing all of this.

People are not interested. People want an easy life.

I get that. What I dont get is people struggling to understand the basic fact that we have no future at all if we dont move from non renewable energy.

Do people not understand what non renewable means or are they simply uninterested as long as they can access facebook?

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by oaksoft

[pod]

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The wind turbine problem isnt one of varying wind. Its lack of storage.

Solar power IS part of the solution. They are not incorporated into every house because of cost. They should be legislated to do so though.

The problem with Hydro is one of suitable location. I remember an expert on this explaining how we had very few suitable locations for big stations. Maybe we need to be more creative and think about micro hydro.

The biggest problem our society has it that we havent woken up yet to the necessity of pursuing all of this.

People are not interested. People want an easy life.

I get that. What I dont get is people struggling to understand the basic fact that we have no future at all if we dont move from non renewable energy.

Do people not understand what non renewable means or are they simply uninterested as long as they can access facebook?

 

Or maybe they don't want to be left in the dark.

[salmonbuddie]

In simple terms, EDF cant afford it and the French government cant afford it either. EDF are talking about selling assets to fund their share. It sounds like a desperate all or nothing gamble by all concerned.

The UK government are so desperate for the work that they have agreed to pay twice as much for the energy as it should cost for 35 years just to keep investors interested.

Personally I hope this never sees the light of day. Nuclear energy should be left in the past.

They've decided to take the (relatively) short term pain by gambling that the returns by the UK (or rUK) government will pay off in the long run. That's their call.

I'm still undecided on fission power, and I know first hand how difficult and expensive the first generation of stations are to clean and make safe. The second generation will be much easier, they were designed with decommissioning in mind, as is the new generation. In theory, anyway, we'll know for sure in 10 years or so.

I'm holding out for fusion becoming a reality in my lifetime.

[emoji4]

[salmonbuddie]

Completely agree about renewables, especially Hydro for Scotland. I'd use iScotland's oil revenue pay for investment in research, construction facilities and training / apprenticeships for renewable technology.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Combination of renewable including pv panels, wind, tidal and hydro.
All invest more in local generation.

UK gov has consistently withdrawn funding from renewable research like tidal which is stupid when we are a fecking island.

Sent fae ma fone

[FTOF]

These strategies would require serious financial investment and forward thinking.

Unfortunately we're too busy falling over ourselves to invest billions of pounds in an outdated weapon system, albeit one that could provide more than enough heat for the masses if it was ever used.

Edited July 29, 2016 by FTOF

[salmonbuddie]

These strategies would require serious financial investment and forward thinking.

Unfortunately we're too busy falling over ourselves to invest billions of pounds in an outdated weapon system, albeit one that could provide more than enough heat for the masses if it was ever used.<_>

They're posited on an independent Scotland, FTOF, not UK - long term strategic thinking could be possible.

[Drew]

Oil price drops, workers take the hit. Not the shareholders or the CEO? f**k that!

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, pod said:

Or maybe they don't want to be left in the dark.

This is where the attitude problem really kicks in.

People know we use non renewable energy resources and that energy bills are increasing in price and that our obsession with being "always plugged in" means we are being forced into speeding up the exhaustion of those resources or having to do crazy things like use nuclear power in the short term. and yet consumption still increases.

This is a classic problem of people not taking any personal responsibility at all.

My feeling on this is that the early adopters of renewable energy, whose population sees it almost as passion to cut energy use, will be the new superpowers of the future whilst the old superpowers are held back by every type of Dickson arguing about the lack of windy days.

I am not sure which way Scotland will go. Sometimes I think enough Svots are educated and switched on about the issue to get us through it and then I stare in disbelief at yet another poster or journalist who still thinks the issue with wind power is one of irregulairty of source.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:

Completely agree about renewables, especially Hydro for Scotland. I'd use iScotland's oil revenue pay for investment in research, construction facilities and training / apprenticeships for renewable technology.

I would support this to the hilt.