| Is the BBC.. 02:30 - Oct 18 with 8311 views | Kendo_Nagasaki |
nothing more than a state run broadcaster which fools the public into being an impartial observer, when it really is a propaganda machine that feeds you bullshit and forces you to pay for the privilege ???
Or is it a really honest corporation that has our true interests at heart?
Thouights?
|  |
| Psycho killer Qu'est-ce que c'est? |
| |  |
| Is the BBC.. on 17:42 - Oct 18 with 2154 views | 1MoreBrightonR |
Having lived in America and seen the appalling TV they churn out and in particular the awful news and non existent documentaries, i will happily pay my license fee. BBC Radio is fantastic, BBC online content and educational content is fantastic and respected worldwide. Their nature documentaries are respected worldwide as are their documentaries.
People talk about the American dramas like the wire and sopranos and they are amazing...but we are cherry picking the best shows from hundreds of american channels and saying the BBC isnt as good....well, no, course it isn't as thats like comparing a league team the Brazil team/ |  | | |
| Is the BBC.. on 18:36 - Oct 18 with 2140 views | TheBlob |
Well one good thing about the BBC at least you know where the bulk of useful idiots and subversives are concentrated - outside of universities that is.
I'll bet the new premises oop north are chocka with GCHQ listening devices. |  |
| |
| Is the BBC.. on 19:04 - Oct 18 with 2135 views | R_from_afar |
Don't worry, I'm not offended , I just thought that was rather a sweeping statement. 
I think the biggest challenge with energy is that the status quo, which has been great until the last few years - plentiful energy, easy to get at, pretty cheap - cannot and will not continue. This needs to be the starting point of any discussion on energy. Every single day, the world uses 3 million barrels of oil more than it has left in the ground. That is going to have an impact. Wikileaks also revealed that the Saudis may have overstated their oil reserves by 40%!
With fossil fuels, we are reliant on sources of energy which are by definition finite, so they will get more expensive, and that is borne out by the fact that the increasing cost of wholesale of gas is statistically the biggest contributor to rising energy bills. I don't know enough about nuclear to say if it is an infinite source but it's not an ideal solution, and not just for the obvious safety reasons. The cost of disposing of the waste we already have in the UK is over £70bn plus we are struggling to find somewhere to store it. Then there are a number of reliability issues; a plant recently had to be permanently closed in the US (San Onofre) due to persistent corrosion in some pipework. These plants also take years to build; the fastest we have ever built one in the UK is 7 years, so don't hold your breath for the new ones. They are not "always on" either, they need to go offline for on average 2 days a month, for maintenance and refuelling.
I'm not going to talk about the global warming and climate change issues here, for a change (!) Renewables offer the huge benefit of clean operation and infinite, free "fuel" but switching to an energy system which is predominantly renewables based takes us into unknown terrority and as with any sea change, will involve a lot of upfront cost (just as the switch from wood to coal must have). It is going to be tough to make the change but it has to be made at some point and given how much effort is required, it is better to start now than to put it off because it's not an easy change. I hope it's feasible, perhaps it isn't, but far cleverer people than me - the Universities of Delaware and Stanford for example - have researched it and say it can be done and other countries, e.g. Germany, Denmark, China (massive investment in wind energy) - are having a real go at it.
Your point about not rushing into fracking is interesting. The French have banned all fracking and a legal challenge to the ban was just overturned, so they will not be getting involved. Fracked oil or gas is still a fossil fuel so that doesn't deal with the "finite" issue and in any case, I think people are getting carried away with its potential in the UK. Our geology is different to the US, mineral rights belong to the crown not the landowner, we lack the infrastructure for onshore exploration, planning rules are stricter, we are more densely populated and we will need a lot of wells to make reach a significant level of production. Leaving the methane in water and earthquakes arguments to one side, a vast amount of water will be needed (500 tanker loads per drill site and this when the NFU are saying that in the next decade, in dry years, they will face a water shortfall for farming of nearly 50%) and now in the US, research is revealing that outflows from fracking sites can be 5-10 more saline than sea water and also dangerously radioactive.
There are no easy solutions. Ugh.
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Is the BBC.. on 20:02 - Oct 18 with 2123 views | TheBlob |
| Is the BBC.. on 19:04 - Oct 18 by R_from_afar |
Don't worry, I'm not offended , I just thought that was rather a sweeping statement.
I think the biggest challenge with energy is that the status quo, which has been great until the last few years - plentiful energy, easy to get at, pretty cheap - cannot and will not continue. This needs to be the starting point of any discussion on energy. Every single day, the world uses 3 million barrels of oil more than it has left in the ground. That is going to have an impact. Wikileaks also revealed that the Saudis may have overstated their oil reserves by 40%!
With fossil fuels, we are reliant on sources of energy which are by definition finite, so they will get more expensive, and that is borne out by the fact that the increasing cost of wholesale of gas is statistically the biggest contributor to rising energy bills. I don't know enough about nuclear to say if it is an infinite source but it's not an ideal solution, and not just for the obvious safety reasons. The cost of disposing of the waste we already have in the UK is over £70bn plus we are struggling to find somewhere to store it. Then there are a number of reliability issues; a plant recently had to be permanently closed in the US (San Onofre) due to persistent corrosion in some pipework. These plants also take years to build; the fastest we have ever built one in the UK is 7 years, so don't hold your breath for the new ones. They are not "always on" either, they need to go offline for on average 2 days a month, for maintenance and refuelling.
I'm not going to talk about the global warming and climate change issues here, for a change (!) Renewables offer the huge benefit of clean operation and infinite, free "fuel" but switching to an energy system which is predominantly renewables based takes us into unknown terrority and as with any sea change, will involve a lot of upfront cost (just as the switch from wood to coal must have). It is going to be tough to make the change but it has to be made at some point and given how much effort is required, it is better to start now than to put it off because it's not an easy change. I hope it's feasible, perhaps it isn't, but far cleverer people than me - the Universities of Delaware and Stanford for example - have researched it and say it can be done and other countries, e.g. Germany, Denmark, China (massive investment in wind energy) - are having a real go at it.
Your point about not rushing into fracking is interesting. The French have banned all fracking and a legal challenge to the ban was just overturned, so they will not be getting involved. Fracked oil or gas is still a fossil fuel so that doesn't deal with the "finite" issue and in any case, I think people are getting carried away with its potential in the UK. Our geology is different to the US, mineral rights belong to the crown not the landowner, we lack the infrastructure for onshore exploration, planning rules are stricter, we are more densely populated and we will need a lot of wells to make reach a significant level of production. Leaving the methane in water and earthquakes arguments to one side, a vast amount of water will be needed (500 tanker loads per drill site and this when the NFU are saying that in the next decade, in dry years, they will face a water shortfall for farming of nearly 50%) and now in the US, research is revealing that outflows from fracking sites can be 5-10 more saline than sea water and also dangerously radioactive.
There are no easy solutions. Ugh.
RFA |
Whatever is anti American in the energy debate the BBC will adopt it.
Whatever produces energy in this area,be it nuclear, Solar,geothermal/ocean thermal,magma,Helium 3 fusion,antimatter.....all produce vast quantities of waste heat,so you're f*cked whichever way you turn,sheer weight of numbers.
But the BBC will always maintain some sort of high moral compass. | |
| |
| Is the BBC.. on 03:51 - Oct 19 with 2081 views | Cornish_oooRRRR |
Moving back to the bbc, and although not really answering the questions posed by the op...
I'd happily pay my licence fee if all i got was radio 4 and bbc 4 |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
