Liberal
Democrats have announced they would boost investment in police forces
by £300m a year. This is in stark contrast to the Conservatives who have
overseen devastating cuts to community policing. Theresa May as Home
Secretary and now Prime Minister has cut policing budgets by over £2bn,
eroding the very fabric of community policing.
Under the Liberal Democrats the West Midlands would see a funding
increase of £16,220,000 a year. This could be used to restore a visible
policing presence in the community and ensure the police have the
training and tools to deal with the changing nature of crime.
Liberal Democrat John Hemming commented:“This
investment in our police is absolutely vital. Under Theresa May – first
as Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister, our police have had to
deal with severe cuts. These are now cutting into the bone.“Our police work tirelessly to keep us safe and this Government has completely betrayed them.“Only
the Liberal Democrats have a credible pl…
Comments
In relation to this perhaps you would care to explain your remarkably foolish remark about exponential growth being about to become impossible.
Secondly I said:
"Exponential increases in the use of resources are impossible in the really long term. Even straight line increases come to a limit."
My degree is in Physics specialising in Atomic, Nuclear and Theoretical Physics. I recognise that the limitations of physical systems can be defined mathematically. What mumbo jumbo do you believe in?
Perhaps with all these dozens of alleged degrees you would be able to explain what you mean about exponential being about to become impossible.
There is a lot of gas in Qatar, but I wonder what evidence you have that makes you more optimistic than the IEA for example.
Exactly the sort of total dishonesty I have come to expect from the lying fascist murdereres calling themselves "LibDems"
It is quite simple really. There is doubt as to what the limit is.
Since you are trying to limit it to gas it is clear you know you cannot dispute that there is no limit, for millenia at least, in exponential growth of power usage. It is the power usage not the containment medium which matters.
The idea of breeder reactors either based upon the Thorium cycle or otherwise has not been successfully implemented. In any event there is an EROEI (energy cost of extraction) issue to be resolved.
There are various ways of getting solar energy. I think the idea of a high voltage network to northern africa has merit. That is a form of renewable energy.
It remains, however, that the issue of peak extraction rates of oil and gas are important constraints which should be taken into account in planning future energy usage.
I was considering solar power satellites, also a form of renewable as indeed is nuclear by any reasonable definition, but have no objection to covering the Sahara with units if it can be match the price of nuclear.
Extraction rates of volatiles is a constraint which should have made us encourage practical alternatives not impractical ones & making excuses to return to the Middle Ages. Regretably British politicians, with the LibDems in the lead, have repeatedly chosen to embrace Ludditism.
I would start with solar receptors in the Sahara in preference to Inner space.
These still would constrain energy usage below an exponential annual rate increase.
I would start with the most available & cost effective method. If you would prefer to start with something less effective then you are not arguing that it is inherent that energy will become less available but that, for political reasons, you want to produce an artificial shortage.
I don't & you should give reasons for wishing so.
There is an energy cost to concentrating Uranium after mining the ore. There is also a limit on various ore concentrations.
The IAEA look at these issues and identify constraints on usage eg
www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
In any case if there were legitimate doubts about it that would not justify government "protecting" investors from proving it. The fact that investors have invested, repeatedly & made money except where government has prevented it shows political attempts to redefine "cost" are politics not economics or indeed physics.