Archaeologica.org

What risk Ish?
Look at this way. Halfway through building a series of new nuclear power stations in the UK the whole bubble bursts. Is the goverment going to pull out? If they do the contract will almost certainly contain compensation clauses.
Risk assessment is based on the risk of the investment going pear shaped. Nothing else. The bank will invest in anything that they think will make a profit, look what has happened to the sub prime market and the money they lost there. They will follow whatever trend is current it seems
An example, it is now widely accepted that growing crops for fuel is not the good idea that the EU thought it was, but they plow on.

Makes me wonder more what they've salaried the scientists to find now?

Ishtar wrote: But no I've started to have doubts now, because of your response. You are the usually a staunch defender of science, being a fully paid up member of Richard Dawkins' board and all that, and yet you are not here defending the GW being man-made argument from the scientific point of view.

Could that be because you also agree with Dig and Rich that the science supporting the case for man-made GW is bad science?

Truth is I really don't know what to think, though I'm fairly convinced by the arguments for GW being something that's already happening without our help, I seriously find it hard to believe we aren't contributing and at the end of the day (Brian) we need to be a hell of a lot more responsible with regards to the environment - well, fuck it - we need to make massive changes, and I don't think this is simply a matter of choice. It's not just purely an environmental thing either, there's just too many evil fucks out there with too much money and power.

I only get tetchy when I think something that patently isn't science (ie - verifiable under conditions of blah blah blah) is being passed off as absolute truth, or at least objective rather than subjective truth, if you see what I mean. For example, the shamanism thing (uh oh) I'd argue that visions / hallucinations etc can be part of an entirely valid experience within the context of a belief system (and after all a belief system is simply a subjective frame of reference for the world at large) and therefore doesn't NEED to be understood as 'glimpses of parallel reality' (in objective rather than subjective terms) or whatever. Hmmm. If you want to pick me up on this, might be an idea to take it to another thread, I don't want to OT this one.

I think part of the problems we've had may (I hope) be down to language.

No , that's where you're wrong Dig. The bankers can't get investment into this country because the government keeps changing it's mind and there's no solid legislative framework in place, so investors invest in European energy projects. Nuclear until a very recently was seen as a sunset industry, but now there's been at about turn as for all its dangers, they reckon its cleaner than fossil fuel, and so the gov wants to build more of them. However, students have been put off training to be nuclear engineers thinking there'd be no jobs for them there - so they're now going to have to get students interested in training for this once more.

I was at a conference yesterday where the bankers seemed to be almost yelling at a surprising ebullient Gordon Brown (considering his disastrous by-election results) that he has to do something about this, otherwise no-one will invest in the UK's renewable energy industry.

War Arrow wrote:
I only get tetchy when I think something that patently isn't science (ie - verifiable under conditions of blah blah blah) is being passed off as absolute truth, or at least objective rather than subjective truth, if you see what I mean. For example, the shamanism thing (uh oh) I'd argue that visions / hallucinations etc can be part of an entirely valid experience within the context of a belief system (and after all a belief system is simply a subjective frame of reference for the world at large) and therefore doesn't NEED to be understood as 'glimpses of parallel reality' (in objective rather than subjective terms) or whatever. Hmmm. If you want to pick me up on this, might be an idea to take it to another thread, I don't want to OT this one.

I think part of the problems we've had may (I hope) be down to language.

Yes happy to do this again - although I thought we'd already done it. But if you think another approach might help, and can work out how we can do it without us falling out too badly, then please start another thread.

Recently the government decided to build a new immigrant detention centre in Bicester, you may remember the case. Having been faced with massive local objections they withdrew the prposal. The compensation to the contractor ran into millions, the Parliamentry Audit Committee blasted the goverment over it.

Yes I can see how that would be annoying - but the guy was entitled to his millions in my opinion. He's trying to run a business and can't be fucked around by a governent that can't make up its mind.

But the people I met yesterday were not looking for compensation money. They were looking to make real investment and make real profits - and didn't feel that there was a stable enough legislative regime in this country for them to get it. At the moment, it's a bit like investing in a banana republic. They don't even know if GB will be PM after the October conference season and if not, what that situation will entail.

Thats not untypical of previous labour governments I'm afraid Ish.
But banks don't necessarily invest directly. Contractors submit their quotes, the government decides and the contractors invest part of their own cash, the banks normally insist on that, and investment banks front the cash.
The compensation clauses are between government and contractors, not the banks.
Unfortunately our government keeps changing its mind or makes unrealistic promises,
Gordon's latest gambit for his green revolution is 7000 wind generators at a cost of 100 billion and covering an area the size of Essex with forest and crops.
Where's the land coming from for that?

He said yesterday that he's going to use the North Sea mainly, which makes sense in a way because the oil and gas industry there is more or less finished.

What about the land, is he gonna drain the English Channel?

No, he's going to have them mounted in the sea. No draining will be necessary!

Oh I see, the crops. He didn't say anything about covering a size of land like Essex with crops at the thing I was that. Maybe the press it made it up - it's not in the consultation paper either.

Bah - that's an easy one. We build overhead parking lots - why not overhead farming plots

So the ground beneath is in permanent shadow and can't be used to grow anything.
And 7000 wind turbines will not save one ounce of carbon either.

Nah - just build it over the roadways and sidewalks in the cities - that way you'll have rain shelter too

Here ya' go: rooftop farms - funny I mentioned AoC before meaning Age of Conan but I guess there's another AOC:

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/ro ... ondon.html