Polish Workers

[Anonymous]

Yes, I always wear a wig and false moustache to go to Macdonalds.

But then I also wear them to do everything else.

I'm not so much an artisan, as an artist. I'll leave it to you to decide what sort of artist.

 

[Anonymous]

I have no experience of Polish workers at all, but I would suggest that good Polish workers are good, and bad Polish workers are bad.

No, I'm not trying to be flippant. Just suggesting that you (a) ask for and take up references, (b) try to see examples of any applicant's previous work, and/or (c) take them on a limited trial period.

Just like any other workman or trade.

 

[Anonymous]

The last two comments are spot on and sensible.
I was asking for any experiences rather than judgements.
The rate of hourly pay requested is at the higher end of the scale, and so far my conversations, verbal and by e-mail ( to Warsaw ) have been encouraging. But the proof of the pudding......

John

 

[Anonymous]

And they dont sit in the van the moment a cloud arrives and constantly moan about something.

Workmen are workmen, whatever nationality and in my experience until you know different they all need closely monitoring for many reasons but should not be judged by nationality.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks NT, I feel so reassured, NOT!
If we had Governments and world leaders who shared your view I would be optimistic, instead we have leaders who spend billions and billions fighting oil wars and don’t believe in global warming among many other madnesses.

You seem to think the current fossil fuel economy is a myth
and that at the drop of a hat we will abandon the current myriad of fossil fuel based factories, production, farming and transport methods for green alternative simply because of economic pressure.

I do not see evidence of any foresight of the level of investment needed in alternatives happening as fast as it should be.

Our own government tells us that to build any new nuclear power plants (hardly a popular or safe alternative) will take at least 10-15 years so in the meantime they will spend billions on gas pipelines to Russia and import the gas. They knew about the gas running low 10 to 15 years ago and did nothing.
China and Asia are more interested in investing in Coal gasification and nuclear, Russia (bordering on economic collapse) have an economy based on corruption and selling Gas (until it begins to run out then they will want it for themselves) Canada are trying to get oil from shale and Iran are going nuclear, don’t start me on America.

The current attitude seems to be that the world will go green when it has to, meantime lets squeeze every last drop of fossil fuel out of the planet. Probably because a sudden movement toward alternatives would see global economic collapse.

Yes there is investment in going green and in tackling climate change, but its woefully slow and is in danger of being too little and too late unless governments pull there bl**dy fingers out NOW.

 

[Anonymous]

---" For any government to do what is best for their country in the long run, would spell immediate self distruction of their power in the short run"---
It is not their fault , it is the greed of the majority"-

MIDDI

 

[Anonymous]

Spot on Middi, lets hope the individual and eventually governments will see that the best path is the green path,
for my part I recycle all I can, I have water butts off every gutter, I grow my own veg, I cycle and walk and havent been in an airoplane for 6 years, Ive got extra loft insulation and low energy bulbs, and only use the heating when needed, as a family we find small measures like that no real problem and Im sure we could do more. I still believe that given the huge challenges of future energy supply a long term aim of a global economy is a dream, I belive that local economies trading globally where sustainable will be a more likely future.

 

[Anonymous]

Guys, honestly!

The global economy is not new. It's not some kind of awful recent invention of modern capatalists!
I agree with all green sentiments, I agree that we all must do something ourselves to make things better ( or make ourselves feel better ) Act local, think global is a fair way of putting it......but don't get carried away with the global bit
Since neolithic days man has traded with far off places. So how far back do we have to go to find that perfect local, self sustaining economy?

What we maybe should do is stop buying all the far flung organic produce on sale in every healthy organic shop up and down the country, sold by people who really should know better.
Never judge a book by it's cover.

John

 

[Anonymous]

> You seem to think the current fossil fuel economy is a myth

eh?

> and that at the drop of a hat we will abandon the current myriad of fossil fuel based
>factories, production, farming and transport methods for green alternative simply because of
>economic pressure.

no, I never said that. Nothing changes at the drop of a hat, nor need it.

> Our own government tells us that to build any new nuclear power plants (hardly a popular or
> safe alternative) will take at least 10-15 years so in the meantime they will spend billions
> on gas pipelines to Russia and import the gas. They knew about the gas running low 10 to 15
> years ago and did nothing.

so we do have enough. Calm down, meditate.

>China and Asia are more interested in investing in Coal gasification and nuclear, Russia
>(bordering on economic collapse) have an economy based on corruption and selling Gas (until it
>begins to run out then they will want it for themselves) Canada are trying to get oil from
>shale and Iran are going nuclear, don’t start me on America.

Each country has its plans.

> The current attitude seems to be that the world will go green when it has to,

seems to be working so far, not perfect, not as fast as would be ideal, but its working. As oil prices continue to rise, the interest and application of renewables and conservation increases.

> meantime lets squeeze every last drop of fossil fuel out of the planet.

I've not heard anyone propose that

> Probably because a sudden movement toward alternatives would see global economic collapse.

huh?

> Yes there is investment in going green and in tackling climate change, but its woefully slow
> and is in danger of being too little and too late

the money is spent when its needed. The options already exist. The technologies improve year by year, so theres no sense investing prematurely.

> unless governments pull there bl**dy fingers out NOW.

maybe this problem is emotional in nature.

NT

 

[Anonymous]

Last Updated: Thursday, 26 January 2006, 13:08 GMT

Energy gap: Crisis for humanity?

By Richard Black
BBC News website environment correspondent

Fossil fuels have been the cheapest and most convenient so far
But take your pick from terms like "serious concern" and "major issue" and you will not be far from the positions which analysts are increasingly adopting.

The reason for their concern can be found in a set of factors which are pulling in glaringly different directions:

* Demand for energy, in all its forms, is rising
* Supplies of key fuels - notably oil and gas - show signs of decline
* Mainstream climate science suggests that reducing greenhouse gas emissions within two decades would be a prudent thing to do
* Meanwhile the Earth's population continues to rise, with the majority of its six billion people hankering after a richer lifestyle - which means a greater consumption of energy.

Underlying the growing concern is the relentless pursuit of economic growth, which historically has been tied to energy consumption as closely as a horse is tethered to its cart.

It is a vehicle which cannot continue to speed up indefinitely; it must at some point hit a barrier, of finite supply, unfeasibly high prices or abrupt climate change.

The immediate question is whether the crash comes soon, or whether humanity has time to plan a comfortable way out.

Even if it can, the planning is not necessarily going to be easy, or result in cheap solutions. Every energy source has its downside; there is no free lunch, wherever you look on the menu.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a rise in global energy demand of 50-60% by 2030.

If all else remained equal, that rising demand would be accommodated principally by fossil fuels, which have generally been the cheapest and most convenient available.

But oil supplies show signs of running down; this, combined with concerns about rising demand and political instability, conspired to force prices up from $40 a barrel at the beginning of 2005 to $60 at its close.

There is more oil out there, for sure; but the size of proven reserves is uncertain, with oil-producing countries and companies prone to exaggerate the size of their stocks. Currently uneconomic sources such as tar sands could be exploited; but at what cost?

Natural gas stocks - in recent times the fuel of choice for electricity generation are also showing signs of depletion, and there is growing concern in Western capitals about the political instability associated with oil and gas supplies from the Middle East and Russia.

Coal, the fuel of the industrial revolution, remains relatively abundant; but here the climate issue raises its provocative head most volubly, because of all fuels, coal produces more greenhouse gas emissions for the energy it gives.

Based partly on the predicted availability of cheap coal, the IEA forecasts a 50% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

Mainstream climate science, meanwhile, indicates that to avoid dangerous consequences of climate change, emissions should fall, not rise, by 50%.

The economic and environmental horses are clearly pulling in mutually incompatible directions.

No climate curbs

It is a rare human that dons a hair shirt voluntarily; and in seeking to deal with climate change, we are, it seems, behaving to type.

It took the world's most comfortably-off nations more than seven years to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force following its signing in 1997.

Sharp divisions over nuclear power show no signs of disappearing

An alternative "climate pact", the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, emerged last year contending that technology alone would solve global warming.

It recently concluded its first ministerial meeting by endorsing projections that under its aegis, emissions will at least double by 2050; economic growth is sacrosanct, and so consumption of coal and other fossil fuels must also continue to rise.

Concern over climate change, then, is not on a global basis proving to be a driver for clean technology or for reducing demand for energy.

Rising prices or simply constraints on supplies of fossil fuels could, however, bring other fuels into the equation; and nuclear fission is at the head of the queue.

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are now about 440 commercial reactors in the world, providing 16% of its electricity; for major developing countries such as India and China, nuclear power remains both a significant part of the electricity mix and a close companion to military programmes.

But concerns over waste have set other countries such as Germany on a determinedly non-nuclear path.

Waste apart, nuclear faces another potential obstacle; stocks of uranium are finite.

Analysts differ over how soon a uranium deficit might emerge; some believe that a significant ramping up of nuclear capacity would exhaust economic reserves on a timescale of decades.

That could be extended by adopting "fast breeder" reactors, which create more fissile material as they go.

Too good to be true? Perhaps, because there is a major downside; the creation of plutonium, with its attendant dangers of proliferation.

The other nuclear technology, fusion, is full of hope but even its most ardent supporters admit it is decades away.

Wind, waves and sunlight

Most of the energy we use on Earth comes directly or indirectly from the Sun.

It is the Sun which stirs winds and the great water cycle, depositing rain on highlands and creating the potential for hydro-electric power; it is the Sun's energy which grew plants which decayed to form the coal and oil that we have extracted so determinedly in our industrial age.

Is it now time, then, to use its energy directly, to blanket the Earth in photo-voltaic cells and silently power humankind's future?

Certainly it could be done, with energy to spare; but at costs up to five times that of coal and gas, it is not going to be soon.

Wind, wave and tidal power are all fine technologies, but their potential is limited, not least by the fact that they do not generate continuously.

That could be overcome by storing energy. But there are few realistic ways of doing it; and the additional cost would quickly negate any advantage these technologies currently possess.

Hydrogen, meanwhile, is touted as the great climate-friendly hope.

But hydrogen is just a carrier of energy. It must be created, for example by using electricity to split water molecules, in which case replacing petrol-driven cars with hydrogen vehicles would vastly increase the global demand for electricity.

No free lunch, indeed - but a desperately tortuous and risk-laden menu and a kitchen where political or environmental fires could flare up at any moment.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

 

[Anonymous]

Silas, do come and join us on the PowerSwitch forum. You will find lots of kindred spirits. And remember that when we are out of oil and the sillies realies that nuclear is not the answer, we are going to need the skills and knowledge of NT when we have to wire up our microgeneration systems.


http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/index.php

 

[Anonymous]

The fact that someone else shares your numerous false assumptions and logical errors does not tell us a great deal.

NT