The Green Party. All discussion here please

[horribleblob 213]

...I got a nice glossy leaflet from the Greens, the first time in years, and only because its voting time.

 

Good to see that they practise what they preach.

[Jonny5 10]

I always vote Green. Just because their heart is in the right place, even if their head isn't.

[alchresearch 214]

Good to see that they practise what they preach.

 

Only showing their faces when its election time isn't a good way to get a vote though is it? The other parties are the same, with the exception of the Lib Dems, who post a newsletter every two months without fail.

[I1L2T3 10]

In polls the Greens are now joint 4th with the LibDems. I think they will push the LibDems back into 5th place in the EU elections. Fingers crossed anyway.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

I always vote Green. Just because their heart is in the right place, even if their head isn't.

... even cabbages have hearts!

[ivanava 10]

The Greens freedom of movement policy is a longer term aim really. Before that the aim is to greatly reduce the dominance of the developed economies so that poorer countries are allowed to develop. The aim is to bring about greater economic equality between countries. Once there is more equality the economic incentives to leave your country for another are reduced.

 

I don't think the planet could sustain its current population if we were all equal, unless it is the developed economies that drastically cut their consumption to the level of consumption of the poorer countries.

 

 

By 'community' I think you can take that to mean anything from a village up to a region. Or maybe even a whole country like Wales or NI. The Greens want regional assemblies in England so policy could be implemented to ensure sustainability on a region by region basis. Sustainability is the key - the Greens don't want regions like the south east overloaded.

 

That would involve shrinking the population of the south east, and I presume moving the people to other parts of the UK.

 

 

They are pretty much totally anti-nuclear. I think in the future once new safer, cleaner and more rebewable nuclear technologies develop they might need to soften that. But that's a long way off.

Nuclear is the only green energy source that can meant our needs.

 

 

Given the way the global economy has developed you're asking the impossible in the short term, but it's a noble longer term aim for sure.

Buying goods from countries with a sustainable energy policy and good environmental polacies should be a short term aim.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2014 at 12:40 ----------

 

How do you make a solar PV using green energy only?

 

You use the greenest energy available to produce the first wave of solar PV and then use solar PV to produce more of them.

[horribleblob 213]

Only showing their faces when its election time isn't a good way to get a vote though is it? The other parties are the same, with the exception of the Lib Dems, who post a newsletter every two months without fail.

 

True, but the Sheffield Green Party have been showing their faces at their annual Green Fair for the last 28 years.

[L00b 441]

You use the greenest energy available to produce the first wave of solar PV and then use solar PV to produce more of them.

That is not what I would call an enabling disclosure. More of a single entry on a wish list.

 

Do you know what a solar PV is made from?

How it's made (in China or wherever else)?

How it works?

What it must be connected to for making this 'green energy'?

 

Are you familiar with Lavoisier's Law, for that matter?

 

I'll repeat my question: how do you manufacture a solar PV using green energy only?

 

The question is admittedly a bit loaded: solar PV tech is decades-old (we had a PV fitted to our house in France in the late 70s for hot water), and I've handled several patent portfolios for different solar PV manufacturers in the past 7 years, so am reasonably clued-up on the state of the art, whose and where. So think your answer through and carefully

 

That earlier point I made (0% loans) was not limited to solar PVs either. There's many more, and significantly different, renewable energy technologies available to home owners besides it, e.g. geothermal heat pumps.

Edited May 21, 2014 by L00b

[I1L2T3 10]

I don't think the planet could sustain its current population if we were all equal, unless it is the developed economies that drastically cut their consumption to the level of consumption of the poorer countries.

 

 

 

 

That would involve shrinking the population of the south east, and I presume moving the people to other parts of the UK.

 

 

Nuclear is the only green energy source that can meant our needs.

 

 

 

Buying goods from countries with a sustainable energy policy and good environmental polacies should be a short term aim.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2014 at 12:40 ----------

 

 

You use the greenest energy available to produce the first wave of solar PV and then use solar PV to produce more of them.

 

Nuclear as it stands is not green energy. The supply of easily extractable uranium is limited. Uranium is not renewable. Uranium mining is heavily polluting and energy intensive. The conversion process from ore to reactor grade fuel is energy intensive too. Nuclear power stations take up to a decade to construct, again energy intensive.

 

I could use the same argument you used about the non-green energy used for manufacture of PV panels.

 

About the only thing that can be said for it is the plant itself once running has low carbon emissions. But the thing that isn't factored in is the processes for obtaining fuel for the plants and that is about as far from carbon-free as you can get

[Penistone999 10]

They got 250,000 in 2010. The BNP got 500,000.

 

I think that should make most people sad.

 

Just goes to show the Lettuce munchers are less popular than BNP. So whats the point of the Greenies ?

[truman 10]

Nuclear as it stands is not green energy. The supply of easily extractable uranium is limited. Uranium is not renewable. Uranium mining is heavily polluting and energy intensive. The conversion process from ore to reactor grade fuel is energy intensive too. Nuclear power stations take up to a decade to construct, again energy intensive.

 

I could use the same argument you used about the non-green energy used for manufacture of PV panels.

 

About the only thing that can be said for it is the plant itself once running has low carbon emissions. But the thing that isn't factored in is the processes for obtaining fuel for the plants and that is about as far from carbon-free as you can get

 

Which of the 2 systems, renewable and nuclear, is the greenest on a CO2/kilowatt basis when all components (construction etc) are taken into account? Genuine question...

[ivanava 10]

That is not what I would call an enabling disclosure. More of a single entry on a wish list.

 

Do you know what a solar PV is made from?

How it's made (in China or wherever else)?

How it works?

What it must be connected to for making this 'green energy'?

 

Are you familiar with Lavoisier's Law, for that matter?

 

I'll repeat my question: how do you manufacture a solar PV using green energy only?

 

The question is admittedly a bit loaded: solar PV tech is decades-old (we had a PV fitted to our house in France in the late 70s for hot water), and I've handled several patent portfolios for different solar PV manufacturers in the past 7 years, so am reasonably clued-up on the state of the art, whose and where. So think your answer through and carefully

 

That earlier point I made (0% loans) was not limited to solar PVs either. There's many more, and significantly different, renewable energy technologies available to home owners besides it, e.g. geothermal heat pumps.

 

Yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

You use the greenest energy available to produce the first wave of solar PV and then use solar PV to produce more of them, instead of using energy from coal power stations to make them all.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2014 at 13:31 ----------

 

Nuclear as it stands is not green energy. The supply of easily extractable uranium is limited. Uranium is not renewable. Uranium mining is heavily polluting and energy intensive. The conversion process from ore to reactor grade fuel is energy intensive too. Nuclear power stations take up to a decade to construct, again energy intensive.

 

I could use the same argument you used about the non-green energy used for manufacture of PV panels.

 

About the only thing that can be said for it is the plant itself once running has low carbon emissions. But the thing that isn't factored in is the processes for obtaining fuel for the plants and that is about as far from carbon-free as you can get

 

But still greener than coal and gas, and much higher energy output than solar and wind.