SPAM random annoying things

[Gwadien]

Try this before bed, toasted cheese, marmite and tomato sauce sandwich.

You're welcome.

I may be saying this to trigger Job but...

That's the whitest shit I've ever heard.

 

[Embattle]

The thing is as soon as get the mental craving I start to get the smell craving.

 

[Scouse]

Why are we talking about visual impact here? Why is the Beeb using that as the main thrust of the article:

Anglesey tidal energy scheme planning inquiry to begin

The Anglesey coast project is one of the largest of its kind in the world, developers say.

www.bbc.co.uk

When the developer's own assessment apparently states that you could potentially kill 98% of some species?


This is clearly a no-go IMO. I know the area extremely well (from both land and sea - walking/biking and kayaking there every year, multiple times (since I was about 5 years old). It depressed me that there would be visual intrusion (never more than six meters! - six meters! That's fucking loads) and also that it would probably make one of the country's best kayaking destinations too dangerous (people from all over the world come to play in the tidal races around South Stack). But then - we do need alternative sources of power, so although there may well be impacts, on balance (and with nothing more than a finger in the air) I was thinking this probably isn't sufficient to put the breaks on.

However, the first thing I thought about was the bird** and seal colonies that live around there and the fact that I think that the tidal race is a fish run (you'd expect marine animals to, you know, use their environment).

The whole point of sustainable energy is to preserve the wild environment and the global environment. We don't do that by killing things. It's Team America World Police destroy Paris levels of dumb.


**Edit: Just to be clear, South Stack is of national importance when it comes to nesting birds (including rare ones). So much so that the RSPB built a visitor centre there.

 

[DaGaffer]

Why are we talking about visual impact here? Why is the Beeb using that as the main thrust of the article:

Anglesey tidal energy scheme planning inquiry to begin

The Anglesey coast project is one of the largest of its kind in the world, developers say.

www.bbc.co.uk

When the developer's own assessment apparently states that you could potentially kill 98% of some species?


This is clearly a no-go IMO. I know the area extremely well (from both land and sea - walking/biking and kayaking there every year, multiple times (since I was about 5 years old). It depressed me that there would be visual intrusion (never more than six meters! - six meters! That's fucking loads) and also that it would probably make one of the country's best kayaking destinations too dangerous (people from all over the world come to play in the tidal races around South Stack). But then - we do need alternative sources of power, so although there may well be impacts, on balance (and with nothing more than a finger in the air) I was thinking this probably isn't sufficient to put the breaks on.

However, the first thing I thought about was the bird and seal colonies that live around there and the fact that I think that the tidal race is a fish run (you'd expect marine animals to, you know, use their environment).

The whole point of sustainable energy is to preserve the wild environment and the global environment. We don't do that by killing things. It's Team America World Police destroy Paris levels of dumb.

There's pretty much nowhere on the Welsh coast that isn't a biodiversity risk and/or and area of outstanding natural beauty. You either want renewables or you don't, so people are going to have to put on their big boy pants and live with it. And just to be clear here, the "whole point of renewables" isn't to preserve the wild environment, that is very much a secondary concern.

 

[Scouse]

There's pretty much nowhere on the Welsh coast that isn't a biodiversity risk and/or and area of outstanding natural beauty. You either want renewables or you don't, so people are going to have to put on their big boy pants and live with it. And just to be clear here, the "whole point of renewables" isn't to preserve the wild environment, that is very much a secondary concern.

When I typed that I thought (really?) but you know, work etc. But still - I disagree. But to modify the language though:

The whole point of renewables is to live sustainably on and with our planet.

There are multiple themes, not just the impacts to human society (raising sea levels etc) but also impacts to the natural world (so yes, that does include preserving "wild" environments - because the environment does include them. But you're right - it's not exclusively, and not limited to.)

Living sustainably doesn't mean killing off significant areas of biodiversity. Sustainability is absolutely about directing our efforts in a fashion that minimises the effects on the natural world.

Proximity to the fishing grounds of threatened species of bird (which have already seen massive declines in their numbers) with an assessment from the actual consortium itself showing that up to 98% of some species might be killed is in direct opposition to the very definition of sustainable growth.

It's not "big boy pants" that are required - it's the accurate and sensible application of sustainable growth and the reversal of mankinds "just fucking get on and do it" approach that has brought us to this situation in the first place.

In fact - mankind needs it's big boy pants confiscating and a lot of these people need putting on the naughty step for making the same mistakes we've always made.


I'm 100% behind renewable energy. Not at the expense of one of the reasons why we're trying to move to renewable energy in the first place.

If the site is unsuitable for biodiversity reasons then that's correct - we shouldn't be going ahead. Instead, we should look at sticking a fuckload more turbines where we're not going to fuck over the wildlife - perhaps incorporating the features in their foundations that offer shelter and breeding ground for fish.

It's absolutely possible to do renewable energy in a way that enhances the natural world, not destroys it.

 

[Scouse]

SSHG's webpage is interesting only for one thing - the map showing the outline of the area. (And the fact that they're intending to use the Porth Dafarch road for heavy traffic (rather than taking it through Holyhead by the looks of it - which frankly is the much preferable solution - the Porth Dafarch road is a deathtrap without heavy industry taking that long way round just to avoid a couple of hundred meters of town centre).

 

[Scouse]

And to be extra clear:

There's pretty much nowhere on the Welsh coast that isn't a biodiversity risk

Then there's pretty much nowhere on the Welsh coast that is suitable for renewable energy then.

(Especially when we can get our energy in a way that doesn't pose those biodiversity risks. That's literally the whole point of sustainable development.)

 

[Raven]

Nuclear it is then!

 

[DaGaffer]

And to be extra clear:


Then there's pretty much nowhere on the Welsh coast that is suitable for renewable energy then.

(Especially when we can get our energy in a way that doesn't pose those biodiversity risks. That's literally the whole point of sustainable development.)

That's just a typical NIMBY argument. And whether you like it or not, if its a choice between human energy needs and biodiversity, the human needs are going to win, even if the energy is coming from renewables. You can foam at the mouth about it all you like, but that's what's going to happen.

 

[Scouse]

Nuclear it is then!

Potentially. And on Anglesey.

And a shitload of cheap, reliable, proven offshore wind. You know, the stuff that the government massively cut subsidy for (to way below that which they still subsidise coal, gas (and nuclear)) - yet is still being rolled out at record pace, because it works.

 

[Scouse]

That's just a typical NIMBY argument. And whether you like it or not, if its a choice between human energy needs and biodiversity, the human needs are going to win, even if the energy is coming from renewables. You can foam at the mouth about it all you like, but that's what's going to happen.

Fully disagree with this. I'll come to the NIMBYism in a bit - but first and quite starkly you're presenting a false choice.

It's not a choice between human energy needs and diversity. Both requirements can be met.


It's not "foaming at the mouth" to argue for the correct solution to be applied. That accusation is trying to paint me as some extremist ranting idiot - whereas my point is calmly considered. We can both protect the environment and at the same time meet human needs.

I'm absolutely not against industrialising the seascape. There are massive windfarms stretching from Liverpool to Anglesey. I'd happily advocate for them to stretch past Anglesey and down into Cardigan Bay - which is (allegedly) a "protected marine reserve". This could be done even in Cardigan Bay in a way that enhances biodiversity (providing additional breeding grounds).

At the same time - there'd not be a single piece of the welsh coastline viewable from anywhere on the mountains or west coast that you wouldn't be able to see mankind's outsized impact on the natural environment. It would change the coastline massively for at least the rest of our lifetimes - and it's not pleasant. Absolutely the loss of the clear view to the horizon is something that would be keenly felt by those who would lose it.

However, a turbine system in a critical area of biodiversity that is likely to kill entire colonies of already threatened sealife is simply unnecessary.

It's not "progress". It's just more continued idiocy and proof that mankind isn't learning from it's legacy of destruction.

It's simply not required.

 

[DaGaffer]

Fully disagree with this. I'll come to the NIMBYism in a bit - but first and quite starkly you're presenting a false choice.

It's not a choice between human energy needs and diversity. Both requirements can be met.


It's not "foaming at the mouth" to argue for the correct solution to be applied. That accusation is trying to paint me as some extremist ranting idiot - whereas my point is calmly considered. We can both protect the environment and at the same time meet human needs.

I'm absolutely not against industrialising the seascape. There are massive windfarms stretching from Liverpool to Anglesey. I'd happily advocate for them to stretch past Anglesey and down into Cardigan Bay - which is (allegedly) a "protected marine reserve". This could be done even in Cardigan Bay in a way that enhances biodiversity (providing additional breeding grounds).

At the same time - there'd not be a single piece of the welsh coastline viewable from anywhere on the mountains or west coast that you wouldn't be able to see mankind's outsized impact on the natural environment. It would change the coastline massively for at least the rest of our lifetimes - and it's not pleasant. Absolutely the loss of the clear view to the horizon is something that would be keenly felt by those who would lose it.

However, a turbine system in a critical area of biodiversity that is likely to kill entire colonies of already threatened sealife is simply unnecessary.

It's not "progress". It's just more continued idiocy and proof that mankind isn't learning from it's legacy of destruction.

It's simply not required.

TLDR - I will take your bet every single time that concerns over biodiversity will lose over any proposed energy project, anywhere, any time.

Oh there will be handwringing about it, even public enquiries, and then it will happen anyway.

 

[Scouse]

TLDR

Weak.

I will take your bet every single time that concerns over biodiversity will lose over any proposed energy project, anywhere, any time.

Oh there will be handwringing about it, even public enquiries, and then it will happen anyway.

I don't disagree. And I addressed it:

It's just more continued idiocy and proof that mankind isn't learning from it's legacy of destruction

Bit sad that you can't bring yourself to look at the argument and just go "yeah, perhaps it's not required" rather than pretending you didn't read it though. We both know you did - your OCD of correctness won't let you do otherwise

 

[Scouse]

Potentially. And on Anglesey.

On this @Raven and @Wij - 8bn?!

Double that I reckon. That article I posted a couple of years back covered it - the fact that nuclear remains expensive because it's always the new thing, it's always the new tech and we've not got experienced people / contractors / engineers that can build it, that hit the problems that they've seen before and know how to fix them. Every problem is new.

I'm beginning to think on the waste issue though - we should simply manage it as best we can. (But we're doing a fucking woeful job at the moment). It's ridiculously expensive for what it is and what it gives us (european supergrid and giant desert solar should be priority as it'd be massively cheaper in the long run) but if it means idiot projects that destroy sensitive areas don't get off the ground then that's infinitely preferable.

However, like @DaGaffer says - we'll likely do both

 

[Raven]

Hitting 25 hours overtime in 12 days :/

and still going.

 

[Yoni]

^^ I sympathise but in my line of work it is pretty normal at this time of year

 

[Raven]

^^ I sympathise but in my line of work it is pretty normal at this time of year

New auditors who don't have the first clue about accountancy. I get the feeling we are training them, one asked a colleague what the word accrual meant. It's stupid.

 

[Scouse]

Hitting 25 hours overtime in 12 days :/

Did that Saturday/Sunday this weekend

 

[Yoni]

New auditors who don't have the first clue about accountancy. I get the feeling we are training them, one asked a colleague what the word accrual meant. It's stupid.

It is the case each time an organisation goes through that rotation - if you ave VERY unlucky they rotate their team members each year as well.....

 

[Raven]

It is the case each time an organisation goes through that rotation - if you ave VERY unlucky they rotate their team members each year as well.....

Oh, I know they do, we were with one of the big ones for the last decade and each year it was new trainees, and being fresh graduates don't have the first clue how business or the real world works, just what they have been taught. To be fair, they get as frustrated as we do.

It's a completely new auditing company this year so the levels of samples they want is ridiculous. They have also never audited a company in our industry, which doesn't help.

 

[Yoni]

Just remember they are only doing their jobs

 

[SilverHood]

New auditors who don't have the first clue about accountancy. I get the feeling we are training them, one asked a colleague what the word accrual meant. It's stupid.

My old job had a similar thing with out offshore IT support. Our contract was used to train their new people, so they could bill them out to our competitors for 3 times the money.

 

[Wij]

Pets.

Had to let the dog out for a shite and then he ran in and left mud everywhere like a cunt.

One of the cats is now howling at me to be fed now like a cunt. Right in my face. Howling. Cunt.

Bastards!

 

[Moriath]

Pets.

Had to let the dog out for a shite and then he ran in and left mud everywhere like a cunt.

One of the cats is now howling at me to be fed now like a cunt. Right in my face. Howling. Cunt.

Bastards!

Get ferrets , dont have to take them out for a walk. They eat from food provided over the day so no nomming it all in one sitting. And they live outside but even when running around the house tiny paws not really any mess

 

[DaGaffer]

Pets.

Had to let the dog out for a shite and then he ran in and left mud everywhere like a cunt.

One of the cats is now howling at me to be fed now like a cunt. Right in my face. Howling. Cunt.

Bastards!

One of my red lines. If we had pets I know full well I'd end up looking after them, so fuck that. I'm pretty laid back with my kids but balls to looking after animals for them.

 

[Scouse]

One of my red lines. If we had pets I know full well I'd end up looking after them, so fuck that. I'm pretty laid back with my kids but balls to looking after animals for them.

I'd love a dog. I've got the acreage. But the cat that's adopted us - that I'm totally happy to leave outside for a weekend - is enough of a social and holiday killer on it's own.

Dog would stop me fucking off when I've got a week free and doing something like this, for example.

Animals are almost more binding than kids.

 

[Moriath]

I'd love a dog. I've got the acreage. But the cat that's adopted us - that I'm totally happy to leave outside for a weekend - is enough of a social and holiday killer on it's own.

Dog would stop me fucking off when I've got a week free and doing something like this, for example.

Animals are almost more binding than kids.

We got someone who will look after them for 7.50 a day when we go away . Labours cheap down in cornwall.

 

[Aoami]

Pets.

Had to let the dog out for a shite and then he ran in and left mud everywhere like a cunt.

One of the cats is now howling at me to be fed now like a cunt. Right in my face. Howling. Cunt.

Bastards!

half tempted to just let me dog shit in the flat sometimes. The amount of times he scratches at the door so I have to take him out in the freezing cold only for him to stand on the top step staring at me for a few seconds then running back inside.

 

[Raven]

Why are we talking about visual impact here? Why is the Beeb using that as the main thrust of the article:

Anglesey tidal energy scheme planning inquiry to begin

The Anglesey coast project is one of the largest of its kind in the world, developers say.

www.bbc.co.uk

When the developer's own assessment apparently states that you could potentially kill 98% of some species?


This is clearly a no-go IMO. I know the area extremely well (from both land and sea - walking/biking and kayaking there every year, multiple times (since I was about 5 years old). It depressed me that there would be visual intrusion (never more than six meters! - six meters! That's fucking loads) and also that it would probably make one of the country's best kayaking destinations too dangerous (people from all over the world come to play in the tidal races around South Stack). But then - we do need alternative sources of power, so although there may well be impacts, on balance (and with nothing more than a finger in the air) I was thinking this probably isn't sufficient to put the breaks on.

However, the first thing I thought about was the bird** and seal colonies that live around there and the fact that I think that the tidal race is a fish run (you'd expect marine animals to, you know, use their environment).

The whole point of sustainable energy is to preserve the wild environment and the global environment. We don't do that by killing things. It's Team America World Police destroy Paris levels of dumb.


**Edit: Just to be clear, South Stack is of national importance when it comes to nesting birds (including rare ones). So much so that the RSPB built a visitor centre there.

Not being funny mate, but I remember bringing this up years ago (no I cba to find it) with the argument against wind farms etc and how they are decimating our coastline and countryside both visually and their effect on wildlife. Now you're a country bumpkin it's important to you

At the end of the day, humanity needs energy and baring some sort of apocalypse that throws us back 500 years, that will remain the case. So we either burn horrible shit and put pollutants into the atmosphere or we ruin everything with turbines and panels. Or we go with the very safe (so far) but potentially very dangerous nuclear option, where the only real issue is disposal of said dangerous materials, which I am sure you will agree is a giant clusterfuck, at the moment.

I honestly don't know why we don't just store it (not get rid of it) in space until we can come up with a way to properly dispose of it or reuse it, I'm pretty sure if we can get TV shit to orbit the earth we can get a few tonnes of spent nuclear material to orbit or just stick it on the moon for a while, it's not like it will affect the local wildlife.

While I realise it is absolutely urgent that we stop burning carbon stores, as in it needs to stop, now, we need to be very careful that in doing so we don't just cause further decimation of the world around us by other means.

 

[Scouse]

Not being funny mate, but I remember bringing this up years ago (no I cba to find it) with the argument against wind farms etc and how they are decimating our coastline and countryside both visually and their effect on wildlife. Now you're a country bumpkin it's important to you

It's always been important to me. The whole point of my post is that the hydro scheme is going to fuck over a really sensitive wildlife site - but offshore wind can protect nature.

I honestly don't know why we don't just store it (not get rid of it) in space

Taking it there will kill us. I don't know why this idea still has a hold on people. Traditionally 5% of rocket launches fail - and do you know how much nuclear waste weighs? Even if it wasn't a giant recipe for irradiating the entire planet (which it is) we simply don't have the capacity for getting it there.

While I realise it is absolutely urgent that we stop burning carbon stores, as in it needs to stop, now, we need to be very careful that in doing so we don't just cause further decimation of the world around us by other means.

Here we agree - which is why I'm anti that scheme off Holy Island and the nationally important bird sanctuary there (which the developers acknowledge will kill the wildlife) and pro offshore wind. That's the balance right there.