NationStates Jolt Archive

Thousands of new wind turbines could be built across the UK over the coming decade as part of a £100bn plan to boost renewable energy.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the UK should be a leader in renewable energy.

But he warned it would not come from "business as usual" and he called for a national debate on achieving the UK's target of 15% renewable energy by 2020.

The Tories said "at last" Labour was coming round to "our vision". The Lib Dems say Labour fails to deliver.

In a speech earlier, Mr Brown said the government's plans represented the "most dramatic change in our energy policy since the advent of nuclear power".


Increasing our renewable energy sources in these ways, on this scale, will require national purpose and a shared national endeavour
Prime Minister Gordon Brown

"The North Sea has now passed its peak of oil and gas supply - but it will now embark on a new transformation into the global centre of the offshore wind industry.

"And yes, there will have to be more windfarms onshore too."

'Inevitable' changes

Under the government's plans an extra 4,000 onshore and 3,000 offshore turbines will be needed, impacting on communities, business and the government.

Ministers say visible changes to landscapes, towns and cities are "inevitable" but in his speech Mr Brown promised local communities wind turbines would be sited in the "right" locations.


When the government has failed so lamentably to take a political lead in the last 11 years, why should we believe the coming years will be any different?
Steve Webb
Lib Dem environment

"Increasing our renewable energy sources in these ways, on this scale, will require national purpose and a shared national endeavour.

"So today I want to launch a serious national debate about how we are to achieve our targets."

He promised up to 160,000 new jobs through promoting more renewable energy, including making components for wind turbines and electric cabling.

'New social organisation'

But he said a low carbon economy - which met EU reduction targets - "will not emerge from 'business as usual'."

"It will require real leadership from government - being prepared to make hard decisions on planning or on tax for example, rather tacking and changing according to the polls.

"It will involve new forms of economic activity and social organisation."

Experts discuss whether wind power is the answer

Up to half of the government's carbon reduction target will have to come from electricity, meaning a third will have to be generated from renewables by 2020.

Moves to speed up the connection of renewable energy projects to the national grid are also expected to be announced to help clear a huge backlog of proposed developments.

The UK could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 20% and reduce its dependency on oil by 7% within 12 years, the government says.

'Fundamental problem'

Household bills are expected to increase as a result of the measures, but any impact is unlikely to be felt until later in the next decade.

HOW DO WIND TURBINES WORK?
Turbine

In graphics
Greenpeace hailed the new strategy as "visionary", but the environment group warned that ministers had promised much before and had so far failed to deliver.

The Liberal Democrats poured scorn on Mr Brown's talk of a "green revolution".

The party's environment spokesman Steve Webb said: "The fundamental problem is that Brown doesn't do 'green'.

"He would rather urge oil producers to extract more oil than invest in technologies that will actually save CO2 emissions now.

"When the government has failed so lamentably to take a political lead in the last 11 years, why should we believe the coming years will be any different?"

For the Conservatives, shadow business secretary Alan Duncan said: "After a series of painful and reluctant u-turns, it seems like the government is at last coming round to our vision of a greener Britain.

"Yet it's astonishing that what is billed as a 'strategy' is just another consultation - more delays after a decade of dithering.

"Gordon Brown must now translate these words into action. If we don't grasp this opportunity now, we'll still be playing catch-up in 20 years."


I can only say this is a good thing. Its a big step in slowly becoming less dependent on oil and coal.

I read that more than 60% of the total wind that blows across Europe blows across the UK, given the geography I can see that.

does anyone remember back when the Lib Dem's actually said something worth reading? that was a good weekend :p

also I can only support this measure though it always worries me when there is talk of just using one renewable source

I read that more than 60% of the total wind that blows across Europe blows across the UK, given the geography I can see that.

if we could harness the powers of clouds we would be unstoppable

also I can only support this measure though it always worries me when there is talk of just using one renewable source


Personally I'm more worried about the, ya know, one hunderd.... BILLION.... quid part.

I read that more than 60% of the total wind that blows across Europe blows across the UK, given the geography I can see that.

I've read that as well so it makes sense for us to use this abundant source.

does anyone remember back when the Lib Dem's actually said something worth reading? that was a good weekend :p

also I can only support this measure though it always worries me when there is talk of just using one renewable source



if we could harness the powers of clouds we would be unstoppable

I'm sure in the future we'll start looking at other sources such as hydroelectric power.

f we could harness the powers of clouds we would be unstoppable

Look at them up there...mocking us.

I'm sure in the future we'll start looking at other sources such as hydroelectric power.


Not sure that's particularly practical in the UK.

I haven't read the whole thing, but I heard on the radio the plan is to allow companies to charge us more as long as they're putting the extra money into green development? Maybe there'll be more taxes to raise the amount as well.

Personally I'm more worried about the, ya know, one hunderd.... BILLION.... quid part.

its okay because our children's children will pay for it :)

I'm sure in the future we'll start looking at other sources such as hydroelectric power.

it just seems to me that one slight weather cock-up and the power will go out

Look at them up there...mocking us.

if only we could bring the clouds down to our level...I shall call this fog

Not sure that's particularly practical in the UK.

if only we could harness the power of the shopping trolleys in our water resources :(

Renewable? Why not just burn Greenpeace members in Drax instead of coal?Low energy content and ethical issues.
Wind turbines should only be allowed in towns and cities, not the countryside.Innefficient. Buildings get in the way.
Solar panels should be disguised to look like something nice.They already look nice. Maybe you just need to develop a different taste.
My big idea: build a seawall at the edge of British waters, turbines along the side and locks for ships. Thus prviding our electric and sea defences.And ruin the British economy by scaring away the tourists, not to mention destroying fish populations. Good idea, that.

It's obvious the most viable alternative is Nuclear power.

Wind power is noisy, kills birds (Who cares :p jk), and isn't a reliable source of energy.

Sun power is hard to keep up (Panels heat up and burn out), isn't,once again, reliable, and it takes a lot to get any power worth mentioning.

Hydro power is hard to find, and disrupts the local habitat.

Ethanol is expensive, and almost as bad as gas(I don't like smog :( )

Renewable? Why not just burn Greenpeace members in Drax instead of coal?

Wind turbines should only be allowed in towns and cities, not the countryside.

Solar panels should be disguised to look like something nice.


My big idea: build a seawall at the edge of British waters, turbines along the side and locks for ships. Thus prviding our electric and sea defences.

Innefficient. Buildings get in the way.

Actually, the space between buildings, which is generally unused above street level, has faster wind speeds because the wind has to squeeze between the buildings. The same thing happens in canyons. It's actually why the dirigible masts on the top of the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building were never used for their intended purposes. The wind that blew between the skyscrapers was so forceful atht it was impossible for ligter than air aircraft to safely disembark their passengers.

I'm basically picturing many small light wind turbines strung between skyscrapers.

It's obvious the most viable alternative is Nuclear power.

Wind power is noisy, kills birds (Who cares :p jk), and isn't a reliable source of energy.

Sun power is hard to keep up (Panels heat up and burn out), isn't,once again, reliable, and it takes a lot to get any power worth mentioning.

Hydro power is hard to find, and disrupts the local habitat.

Ethanol is expensive, and almost as bad as gas(I don't like smog :( )

Uranium mining, a necessary aspect of nuclear power, is noisy, kills tremendous amounts of wildlife including birds, requires an incredible amount of energy investment, is not readily accesible everywhere, disrupts the local habitat, is expensive, and is far worse than gas. I don't like radioactive isotopes in my food chain. And Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fermi, and various other disasters and near disasters have shown us exactly how reliable nuclear energy can be.

There are just as many problems with nuclear power as there are with any other technology. It also has the additional problems of being unsustainable using current technology.

It's obvious the most viable alternative is Nuclear power.

I'm sick of this magic pill talk when it comes to nuclear if your going to make this claim back it up

Wind power is noisy, kills birds (Who cares :p jk), and isn't a reliable source of energy.

1) which is why wind turbines are generally built in isolated areas or offshore
2) wrong (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php)
4) your trying to tell me wind is not reliable?

Sun power is hard to keep up (Panels heat up and burn out), isn't,once again, reliable, and it takes a lot to get any power worth mentioning.

1) I do not know where you have heard this as I can find nothing to support that claim
2) I can assure you that the sun will rise tomorrow *waits for the assumption that solar only works in clear sky*
3) thats why 3rd world countries use solar powered lamps :)

Not a big fan of wind power.

1. They are not viable as a base load generator. They produce variable rates of generation dependant on how strong the wind is and rarely operate at full capacity. In fact most only operate at about 30%.
2. Even at a decent level of capacity they don't produce enough power, this entire project will power, maybe 7,000,000 homes which is very reasonable but considering the time, cost and amount of land required is not great. (Based on each turbine powering 1000 homes)

http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html

Solar is also an issue as high latitudes recieve less solar radiation. Cloud cover is also an issue as, although solar still functions it's capacity will be lower as cloud cover cuts out direct solar radiation.

Nuclear power has also been mentioned. It's proabably got the most potential in terms of actual power generation but it's not a magical fix. There's still the reliance on foreign imports for the material although with the quantities required it can be stored more easily than coal or oil. The most difficult problem is the waste issue to which there is no easy or completely satisfactory solution. It's a real pity that no one can get fusion to work properly yet although there is another plant type called the thorium energy amplifier reactor which still provides a massive amount of energy but is also still in testing.

Renewable? Why not just burn Greenpeace members in Drax instead of coal?

Hmm, that's not actually a bad idea. ;)


Have a look at this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/ it gives a pretty good analysis of potential options from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. It's a little long but worth reading.

Building wind turbines has little effect on the output of green house gasses. As we all know, the wind doesn’t blow all the time. To keep a reliable source we have power stations on standby, but this doesn’t mean they are off. They tick over, so the station is running but not to full capacity. And even though it’s not running at full capacity it still produces almost the same amount of greenhouse gas than if it were.

If the power stations weren’t there then when the wind stopped, the power would stop soon after. National grid engineers have said that to try and use wind as a source of power is idiocy with all the reliability problems.

On top of the fact they are fairly useless. All that concrete on the moors and hills that is needed for the turbines seriously fucks up the water system that has been there for millennia, causing floods or water shortages for the local area.

The only reason power companies promote wind power is the massive grants handed out by the government, they must know themselves that they are useless or they wouldn’t need these grants. They would be putting them up without incentive. I see the way forward is further development of cleaner fuels in the short run, and a greater reliance on nuclear power in the long term.

I'm basically picturing many small light wind turbines strung between skyscrapers.


Your idea was already kind of stolen

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/7472722.stm)

The world's first moving building, an 80-storey tower with revolving floors giving a shifting shape, will be built in Dubai, its architect says.

The Dynamic Tower design is made up of 80 pre-fabricated apartments which will spin independently of one another.

"It's the first building that rotates, moves, and changes shape," said architect David Fisher, who is Italian, at a news conference in New York.

"This building never looks the same, not once in a lifetime," he added.

The 420-metre (1,378-foot) building's apartments would spin a full 360 degrees, at voice command, around a central column by means of 79 giant power-generating wind turbines located between each floor.

The slender building would be energy self-sufficient as the turbines would produce enough electricity to power the entire building and even feed extra power back into the grid, said the Italian architect at the unveiling of the project in New York.

There are limitations to any alternative energy source. I think the best solution is to combine multiple types of non-fossil fuel sources, i.e. wind and solar stations as primaries, with nuclear as backup for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Or, we could develop a space elevator and put solar stations into orbit. No clouds or night or annoying atmosphere to get in the way=win. Of course, the difficult part is getting all that crap into orbit and then transmitting the energy back to earth.

Another option is going small scale, with each house having an independent storage system in the basement that is recharged by solar cells and/or small wind turbines, maybe still being connected to a grid using nuclear power.

I don't like radioactive isotopes in my food chain. And Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fermi, and various other disasters and near disasters have shown us exactly how reliable nuclear energy can be.

Nuclear energy can be very reliable. The problems associated with it are usually dumb employees or sloppy reactor designs. Chernobyl for example, didn't have a containment building, while the Japan incident involved employees who thought that dumping nuclear material in a bucket sufficient to start a chain reaction was a good idea, while the Three Mile Island incident was contained, with controlled venting of the reactor gases preventing any large scale incident.

You can't be careless with nuclear energy, but no more than you can with be careless with an oil fired plant, being giant petrochemical bombs by their nature. That's nuclear energy's condition. You don't take short cuts with it.


There are just as many problems with nuclear power as there are with any other technology. It also has the additional problems of being unsustainable using current technology.

Fast Breeder Reactors create more fissile material than they consume. Any energy source is ultimately unsustainable. The sun will burn out eventually, and so will the rest of the stars in the universe. The trick is finding out something that will last a bit longer than the current set.

Not sure that's particularly practical in the UK.

It is in places, the Severn Barrage project most notably, they've been thinking about it for over 150 years (obviously the original designs didn't incorporate electricity) and still haven't got anything done there.

does anyone remember back when the Lib Dem's actually said something worth reading? that was a good weekend
We do regularly, just no-one ever listens ;p
Seriously, in the Henley results the BBC mention the parties coming 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th,ffs.

I'm sick of this magic pill talk when it comes to nuclear if your going to make this claim back it up

fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants
It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants
five billion years’ worth five billion years’ worth
Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel.
Uranium enrichment produces many tons of depleted uranium (DU) which consists of U-238 with most of the easily fissile U-235 isotope removed. U-238 is a tough metal with several commercial uses — for example, aircraft production, radiation shielding, and making bullets and armor — as it has a higher density than lead.
In 1999, nuclear energy generated more electricity-728 billion kilowatt-hours-in the United States than any other fuel source except coal.
Linky#1 (http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/business/perform.htm)
Linky #2(Not in order) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power)
1) I do not know where you have heard this as I can find nothing to support that claim
2) I can assure you that the sun will rise tomorrow *waits for the assumption that solar only works in clear sky*
3) thats why 3rd world countries use solar powered lamps

1. My bad, Old data.

2. Once again, my bad. Solar power isn't as efficient as it could be all the time.

3. That's why the USA uses Fossil fuels.:) Now tell me, who's the rich, advanced world power?


1) which is why wind turbines are generally built in isolated areas or offshore
2) wrong (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php)
4) your trying to tell me wind is not reliable?

1. There's only so many isolated areas.

2. I concede, with This Exception. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife)
The numbers of bats killed by existing onshore and near-shore facilities has troubled bat enthusiasts.[82] A study in 2004 estimated that over 2200 bats were killed by 63 onshore turbines in just six weeks at two sites in the eastern U.

"Five!" "Three sire." "Three!": I'm trying to say wind doesn't
A: Blow everywhere (Ever been to Western Maryland in the summer?)
B: Blow all the time.
So, no, it's not reliable.

One hundred billion quid, eh? Nice investment. That'll pay off, too, given the vast amount of wind in the United Kingdom.

Those of you worrying about the cost, don't. For a government with the economic power of the U.K., that's not that much.

Of course, it'll only be a supplement to nuclear power. Wind is still too unreliable to go any further.

Also, though, I have to ask: what other renewable resource could the U.K. have? You can't use solar very effectively, nor can you use geothermal. Maybe tidal?

One hundred billion quid, eh? Nice investment. That'll pay off, too, given the vast amount of wind in the United Kingdom.

Those of you worrying about the cost, don't. For a government with the economic power of the U.K., that's not that much.

Of course, it'll only be a supplement to nuclear power. Wind is still too unreliable to go any further.

Also, though, I have to ask: what other renewable resource could the U.K. have? You can't use solar very effectively, nor can you use geothermal. Maybe tidal?

geothermal is better for reducing heating/cooling costs in areas like most of great britain. It works better for actual power around Iceland and other Volcanic areas.

One hundred billion quid, eh? Nice investment. That'll pay off, too, given the vast amount of wind in the United Kingdom.

Those of you worrying about the cost, don't. For a government with the economic power of the U.K., that's not that much.

Of course, it'll only be a supplement to nuclear power. Wind is still too unreliable to go any further.

Also, though, I have to ask: what other renewable resource could the U.K. have? You can't use solar very effectively, nor can you use geothermal. Maybe tidal?

We could get 5% of the energy from a single tidal site (Severn Barrage) if we actually got on with building the thing. Geothermal's best for heating bills, I know things called heat pumps have been trialled in some housing projects where they've cut house/water heating costs and energy use hugely.

Another option is going small scale, with each house having an independent storage system in the basement that is recharged by solar cells and/or small wind turbines, maybe still being connected to a grid using nuclear power.

It's not just an option, it's a necessity in any serious plan regarding alternative energy.

I haven't read the whole thing, but I heard on the radio the plan is to allow companies to charge us more as long as they're putting the extra money into green development? Maybe there'll be more taxes to raise the amount as well.

That is one of the reasons why the electric companies are supportive of it.

That is why the government is doing it.

nor can you use geothermal. Maybe tidal?

Britain has significant geothermal resources in the South West of the country and it was being extensively researched until the government decided it was costing too much back in 1991. It's still not enough to power the whole country but it would serve as a base load generator (unlike wind) and had they not pulled the research funding there probably wouldn't be this mad panic about missing emission targets. It also releases heat meaning that you can get roughly a roughly equal amount of heat and electricity from the same source.

Tidal is also a good one but it would be a pain to get past all of the environmental protest groups to actually build a large enough site.

I've read that as well so it makes sense for us to use this abundant source.
Quite, hurrah etc., although they'd best be offshore or this is going to be a waste of time which does more harm than good.

And if anyone suggests photovoltaics, they need punching tbqh.
I'm sure in the future we'll start looking at other sources such as hydroelectric power.
We filled any practical location for hydroelectricity back in the 1960s, sadly.

geothermal is better for reducing heating/cooling costs in areas like most of great britain. It works better for actual power around Iceland and other Volcanic areas.
Eh we can produce quite a large amount of electricity in Cornwall from geothermal, about 5% of the UK's needs (although through losses in transmission etc., this will probably be really beneficial to Devon and Cornwall alone).
Building wind turbines has little effect on the output of green house gasses. As we all know, the wind doesn’t blow all the time. To keep a reliable source we have power stations on standby, but this doesn’t mean they are off. They tick over, so the station is running but not to full capacity. And even though it’s not running at full capacity it still produces almost the same amount of greenhouse gas than if it were.
Obviously you have never lived in the Orkneys.
If the power stations weren’t there then when the wind stopped, the power would stop soon after. National grid engineers have said that to try and use wind as a source of power is idiocy with all the reliability problems.
Source, please.
On top of the fact they are fairly useless. All that concrete on the moors and hills that is needed for the turbines seriously fucks up the water system that has been there for millennia, causing floods or water shortages for the local area.
Uhu, hence why offshore is a better idea. Keep in mind that nowhere on Great Britain is more than about 150 miles from the sea, and you'll understand why offshore is a perfectly valid location for windfarms. Although in my opinion, any whiners about a windfarm on their hill should get a coal-fired station there instead to be quite honest.

Plus, the Germans will have to report it using the term "Das Offshore-Wind-Park", which just amuses me highly.
The only reason power companies promote wind power is the massive grants handed out by the government, they must know themselves that they are useless or they wouldn’t need these grants.
Not useless, just very expensive to build for private investors.

And anyway, without large sums of money for research into better designs, the things will stay useless, which is a shame for the UK, seeing as it's very wind here.
They would be putting them up without incentive.
The same could be said of nuclear.
I see the way forward is further development of cleaner fuels in the short run
Such as?
and a greater reliance on nuclear power in the long term.
Nuclear is not a magic bullet. British nuclear stations are by the coast, and with sea levels increasingly rising, their proper maintenance and the storage of nuclear waste is becoming an ever larger problem, and this is not going to change in the next few thousand years of climate change, either.

Those of you worrying about the cost, don't. For a government with the economic power of the U.K., that's not that much.


It's like 10% of GDP. That's quite a bit. And I am thinking that the UK uses Enron accounting and that Gordon Brown is like Jeffrey Skilling. So, no, the money is probably not there.

Not sure that's particularly practical in the UK.
That's not entirely true; there's some very promising off-shore hydroelectric projects in the UK. Tidal power, if properly harnessed, has great potential.

Eh we can produce quite a large amount of electricity in Cornwall from geothermal, about 5% of the UK's needs (although through losses in transmission etc., this will probably be really beneficial to Devon and Cornwall alone).
And this is, to me, the main point. Renewable energy can be extremely useful, but much of it only works if we think locally. Biofuels, for example, can wreak havoc on the environment (and on food production) if attempted on massive scales; we'll never power Britain through ethanol. But small-scale, locally grown biofuels are extremely effective and environmentally friendly.

It's like 10% of GDP. That's quite a bit. And I am thinking that the UK uses Enron accounting and that Gordon Brown is like Jeffrey Skilling. So, no, the money is probably not there.
Eh Gordon Brown has been a pretty superb chancellor in his time, keeping inflation below 3% for 10 years straight. We'll take the money from the taxpayer but also in international loans.

Hopefully at some point our country will start making money again, instead of bleeding it. I can dream *sniff*

SNIP

however the building materials required for nuclear power are certainly not going to last (source) (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NuclearEnergyCSR28.pdf) not that somehow the magical supples of nuclear material will make it inherently good (though the idea of using men on bicycles as a power source is intriguing)

2. Once again, my bad. Solar power isn't as efficient as it could be all the time.

and nuclear plants don't take into account variations in power demand (which oddly solar does what with more energy being spent on hot days)

3. That's why the USA uses Fossil fuels.:) Now tell me, who's the rich, advanced world power?

Japan :confused: (seriously has this argument ever worked? even in the days of when it was Britain?)

1. There's only so many isolated areas.

its a good thing we have so much of this "water" then :)

2. I concede, with This Exception. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife)

which if you would of bothered to read my source was due to the old small rotor design unless of course we will have flying snails in the future!

A: Blow everywhere (Ever been to Western Maryland in the summer?)
B: Blow all the time.
So, no, it's not reliable.

A) which is why wind farms are built in areas of high wind which is actually a scary portion of the Earth (well over 75% or rather anywhere without significant geographical wind breaks)

B) actually wind blows all the time...everywhere pretty much which I guess is why wind farms are placed near the coast what with dandy middle school concepts like coastal wind

Eh Gordon Brown has been a pretty superb chancellor in his time, keeping inflation below 3% for 10 years straight. We'll take the money from the taxpayer but also in international loans.

Hopefully at some point our country will start making money again, instead of bleeding it. I can dream *sniff*

It's true, the CPI has been low over the past ten years. But Gordon was very keen on extending government credit to off balance sheet vehicles like PFIs. So the real state of the UK's finances are far worse than the national debt would lead you to believe.

I'll grant that they were an invention of the conservatives - and rightly criticized by labour at the time - but Gordo's really taken the ball and run. And now the auction rate security market has failed, I suspect that a lot of them are going to come back on the balance sheet. This will be a very bad event as it will make interest rates go very much higher and strangle the private sector.

I don't think the tax payer has an extra 100 billion to cough up either. In fact, tax receipts are falling right now, and raising taxes at this point wouldn't be prudent. Not with the mess that the collapse of the debt bubble is causing.

Possibly the money could be borrowed from abroad, but I don't think people would like the interest rate.

Have a look at this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/ it gives a pretty good analysis of potential options from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. It's a little long but worth reading.

I got a 404.

Nuclear energy can be very reliable. The problems associated with it are usually dumb employees or sloppy reactor designs. ...You don't take short cuts with it.

And that is exactly the problem. Human error will eventually creep in, and the fact that one can lose cities like Detroit simply because someone is having a stupid day amkes nuclear power risky. And the damage from one of these accidents takes millenia to clean up. Until one can design a foolproof nuclear reactor, this will be a risk we have to face. Consequently, we either risk such a disaster or we build in the middle of nowhere. Then you problems with loss of energy in transmission, trucking the fuel out there, etc.

Fast Breeder Reactors create more fissile material than they consume. Any energy source is ultimately unsustainable. The sun will burn out eventually, and so will the rest of the stars in the universe. The trick is finding out something that will last a bit longer than the current set.

FBRs have other problems. The one at the Fermi plant ran unreliably during its very short lifespan, and the ones in the UK were shut down as soon as the government stopped subsidising them. This implies that they were more of a financial drain than a boon.

You also seem to have a different definition of 'sustainable' than I do. I don't think something has to survive the end of the universe to be sustainable. Something that exists in harmony with the same ecology that supports us would do just fine.

I got a 404.


Sorry, damn thing doesn't want to post properly. Try this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

Sorry, damn thing doesn't want to post properly. Try this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

It works. Thanks.

It's like 10% of GDP. That's quite a bit. And I am thinking that the UK uses Enron accounting and that Gordon Brown is like Jeffrey Skilling. So, no, the money is probably not there.

One hundred billion quid is ten percent of the U.K.'s GDP? Seriously? I thought the U.K. economy was more powerful than that.

One hundred billion quid is ten percent of the U.K.'s GDP? Seriously? I thought the U.K. economy was more powerful than that.
Aye, a strange claim. One hundred billion is under a sixth of our 2008 budget, and is less than both health and also welfare payments.

One hundred billion quid is ten percent of the U.K.'s GDP? Seriously? I thought the U.K. economy was more powerful than that.

GDP of the UK is 1.2 trillion pounds. One tenth of that is 120 billion pounds.

I don't know why, but some people seem to think the GDP is like eighty bajillion. It isn't. The UK's GDP is less than the US federal budget.

Aye, a strange claim. One hundred billion is under a sixth of our 2008 budget, and is less than both health and also welfare payments.

The NHS budget is about 100 billion p.a. (and nearly 10% of gdp).

That's an insane amount of money :(

Wind turbines look cool but I'm not convinced that they can prove to be an efficient power source
If subsidies are unavoidable then how about nuke stations or a (not deadly) general carbon tax

....:(

GDP of the UK is 1.2 trillion pounds. One tenth of that is 120 billion pounds.

No it isn't, £1.2 trillion is the total budget. the total GDP is £2.7 trillion according to the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ

According to world bank statistics it was £2.3 trillion in 2006: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

It's still an insane amount of money to be spending on wind turbines of all things though.

Building wind turbines has little effect on the output of green house gasses. As we all know, the wind doesn’t blow all the time. To keep a reliable source we have power stations on standby, but this doesn’t mean they are off. They tick over, so the station is running but not to full capacity. And even though it’s not running at full capacity it still produces almost the same amount of greenhouse gas than if it were.

If the power stations weren’t there then when the wind stopped, the power would stop soon after. National grid engineers have said that to try and use wind as a source of power is idiocy with all the reliability problems.

On top of the fact they are fairly useless. All that concrete on the moors and hills that is needed for the turbines seriously fucks up the water system that has been there for millennia, causing floods or water shortages for the local area.

The only reason power companies promote wind power is the massive grants handed out by the government, they must know themselves that they are useless or they wouldn’t need these grants. They would be putting them up without incentive. I see the way forward is further development of cleaner fuels in the short term, and a greater reliance on nuclear power in the long term.

National grid engineers have said that to try and use wind as a source of power is idiocy with all the reliability problems.
If we were to rely on wind alone, then of course.

But that's not the solution being proposed. Sustainable, local energy production is the solution.

If we were to rely on wind alone, then of course.

But that's not the solution being proposed. Sustainable, local energy production is the solution. Well I would extend that to include, if we rely on all renewable energy sources it wont work. We will always need a tried and tested reliable source as a back up, which I see as Nuclear or more Fossil Fuel.

On a side note, I don’t want my beautiful Northumbrian scenery ruined by wind turbines, and if you live in a city and only ever drive though the countryside then your not entitled to say that its not all that bad, live with it.

No it isn't, £1.2 trillion is the total budget. the total GDP is £2.7 trillion according to the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ

According to world bank statistics it was £2.3 trillion in 2006: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

It's still an insane amount of money to be spending on wind turbines of all things though.

You understand that there is a difference between dollars and pounds, right?

Now, go look at the currency your sources quote, and think again.

I'll go with the world bank, which gives, 2.3 trillion dollars, or about 1.2 trillion pounds (1 pound being roughly equal to 2 dollars).

We will always need a tried and tested reliable source as a back up, which I see as Nuclear or more Fossil Fuel.
Nuclear may be 'reliable' in the sense that it provides continuous power (as can renewables), but it has some pretty major drawbacks; the least of them being having to deal with nuclear waste for up to 100,000 years.

On a side note, I don’t want my beautiful Northumbrian scenery ruined by wind turbines, and if you live in a city and only ever drive though the countryside then your not entitled to say that its not all that bad, live with it.
I've lived in the countryside for most of my life, near a number of large windfarms, along with working for a landscape design company that has been helping place windfarms in suitable locations.

A huge amount of time, money and effort is put into placing windfarms in locations where they don't disturb their surroundings; it's nigh-on impossible to get the go-ahead for building a windfarm with objections from local residents. Moreover, the largest windfarms are offshore (including at least one, Blyth, in Northumbria already; such an eyesore you missed it, eh?).

The one in Blyth is an eyesore. (Inasmuch as anything in Blyth can stand out as an eyesore, but it really shits up the view from the beach at seaton sluice).

Also, the Blyth windfarm only works at a fraction of its capacity, because some of the cables that connect it to the mainland are broken and can't be fixed.

Of course the answer to this is a planned windfarm at Budle Bay, which really is a crime.

The one in Blyth is an eyesore. (Inasmuch as anything in Blyth can stand out as an eyesore, but it really shits up the view from the beach at seaton sluice).

Also, the Blyth windfarm only works at a fraction of its capacity, because some of the cables that connect it to the mainland are broken and can't be fixed.

Of course the answer to this is a planned windfarm at Budle Bay, which really is a crime.
So very true, we use Budle Bay as 'our' beach, as it were. It’s mostly deserted and I would rate it as one of the best beaches in the country. My dad’s family farm is by Seaton Sluice and I’m telling you, the turbines are an improvement to the eyesore that is Blyth.

But this is also the biggest problem with the anti-wind turbine campaign. They focus on the view and the scenery etc that the turbines disturb. They should really be focusing on there piss-poor performance and general crappyness.

The one in Blyth is an eyesore. (Inasmuch as anything in Blyth can stand out as an eyesore, but it really shits up the view from the beach at seaton sluice).
Well, it must have passed a public consultation process before it got built.

I agree in some ways with Renner20 when s/he says that a lot of firms have got into wind technology because of government incentives; it's a rich man's business. But we shouldn't dismiss the potential of wind power, and renewable energy in general, because of a few dodgy deals.

EDIT: Torness nuclear power station is down the coast from my home town, while Dun Law windfarm ain't too far away either. I tell you, I'd much rather have this (http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/scotpo/rgb/Dun-Law-hay-bales.jpg) than this (http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/images/Dunglass26.jpg).

Well, it must have passed a public consultation process before it got built.

I agree in some ways with Renner20 when s/he says that a lot of firms have got into wind technology because of government incentives; it's a rich man's business. But we shouldn't dismiss the potential of wind power, and renewable energy in general, because of a few dodgy deals. Nobody cares about the scenery of Blyth, or the industrial area around Newcastle in general, Its the rural North Northumberland and Berwickshire we care about. If its possible get a copy of the Northumberland Gazette or Berwick Advertiser. Lots of pages of farmers offered extortionate amounts of money to allow the turbines on there land, and the companies virtually admit its only for the government grants.

EDIT: Torness nuclear power station is down the coast from my home town, while Dun Law windfarm ain't too far away either. I tell you, I'd much rather have this than this. Driven past Torness many times on the way to Edinburgh. I see it as necessary and part of the city so not really an issue, same as the wind turbines in Blyth just without the necessity. Playing large machines that are not needed in un-industrial and scenic areas is more of an issue to me.

If its possible get a copy of the Northumberland Gazette or Berwick Advertiser. Lots of pages of farmers offered extortionate amounts of money to allow the turbines on there land, and the companies virtually admit its only for the government grants.
That's hardly a problem inherent to renewable technology though, but one with the government's handling of the scheme. Moreover, many of us who are pushing for renewable technology are also pushing for more localised schemes; smaller windfarms, or even single turbines, that can power local communities, rather than a few gigantic farms to power large areas of Britain.

It's the same with biofuels, as I discussed above. You'd be hard-pressed to find a green who's pushing for industrial-scale production of ethanol or similar, for that is destructive to the environment in a different manner. However, local farmers producing biofuels on a manageable level, for local communities, is the way to go.

That's hardly a problem inherent to renewable technology though, but one with the government's handling of the scheme. Moreover, many of us who are pushing for renewable technology are also pushing for more localised schemes; smaller windfarms, or even single turbines, that can power local communities, rather than a few gigantic farms to power large areas of Britain.

It's the same with biofuels, as I discussed above. You'd be hard-pressed to find a green who's pushing for industrial-scale production of ethanol or similar, for that is destructive to the environment in a different manner. However, local farmers producing biofuels on a manageable level, for local communities, is the way to go. I know that can work in small communities, it already does on small islands and isolated mountain houses. But to power the industry and homes of a city like London, Manchester or Newcastle. The current renewable sources are simply unviable as they don’t produce enough power. Now I like the idea of Bio-fuels, and I know many local people who use bio-fuels as the proper stuff costs a fortune now. But to get enough of it for a city, which is what’s needed, is un-viable and even damaging. Its all well and good talking about solutions for small individual communities but what about the large ones, they need a lot of power and a lot of fuel. And with the current renewable technology I don’t think that renewable sources are a viable option… yet.

Playing large machines that are not needed in un-industrial and scenic areas is more of an issue to me.
Torness is in a non-industrial, scenic area, it's about 45 miles from Edinburgh, on the coast.

Torness is in a non-industrial, scenic area, it's about 45 miles from Edinburgh, on the coast. Well I wouldn’t call it a scenic area, its in-between the motorway and the open sea.

Well I wouldn’t call it a scenic area, its in-between the motorway and the open sea.
I suppose 'scenic' depends on your point-of-view, but we can safely call the surrounding (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/576722945_2c426a0675.jpg?v=0) area (http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/02/29/torness-nuclear-power-station_179.jpg) non-industrial.

I suppose 'scenic' depends on your point-of-view, but we can safely call the surrounding (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/576722945_2c426a0675.jpg?v=0) area (http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/02/29/torness-nuclear-power-station_179.jpg) non-industrial.
Aye, thats true. But I say the nuclear PowerStation is necessary, like a gun emplacement or an ice-cream stand. Wind turbines, are not.

the least of them being having to deal with nuclear waste for up to 100,000 years.

I love this argument, the waste I wonder if people know or just forget the amount of nuclear waste that is already produced.

I love this argument, the waste I wonder if people know or just forget the amount of nuclear waste that is already produced.
No, it's certainly not forgotten. Indeed, it's a rather pertinent issue.

No, it's certainly not forgotten. Indeed, it's a rather pertinent issue.

But some people argue against power plants and state because it produces waste we shouldn't have it, you trhen tell them how much waste is produced already and where they store it (CBD in my town) and they sometimes go a bit numb.

But some people argue against power plants and state because it produces waste we shouldn't have it, you trhen tell them how much waste is produced already and where they store it (CBD in my town) and they sometimes go a bit numb.
I'd go a bit numb if you claimed you could guarantee that nuclear waste in the middle of your town would be safe for the next 10,000-100,000 years.

I'd go a bit numb if you claimed you could guarantee that nuclear waste in the middle of your town would be safe for the next 10,000-100,000 years.

I am not claiming that at all. But as we can dump nuclear waste out in the back of whoop whoop that isn't so bad

I am not claiming that at all. But as we can dump nuclear waste out in the back of whoop whoop that isn't so bad
Your or my descendants might want to live in Whoop Whoop in the next 100, 1000, 10000, etc., years time. I wouldn't want them living in toxic sludge.

The mess that humanity has got themselves in is due to a large part in short-sightedness. Trying to fix the mistakes made with even more temporary measures is, IMO, a rather foolish tack to take.

EDIT: Torness nuclear power station is down the coast from my home town, while Dun Law windfarm ain't too far away either. I tell you, I'd much rather have this (http://www.bwea.com/media/photo/scotpo/rgb/Dun-Law-hay-bales.jpg) than this (http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/images/Dunglass26.jpg).

Well, quite. But there are lots of crappy power station sites: Drax, Ferrybridge, &c. which are going to be decommissioned over the next few years where you could slide a nuclear power station along side and it would really make bugger all difference. Plus they have all the infrastructure in place (water supply, rail, workers). And the reality is that to generate the same amount of power as the proposed windmill idea, it nuclear would take up far less space.

And lets look at the totality of this proposal. The government is about to spend a tremendous amount of money on what basically amounts to a gamble. The UK is going to face an energy supply problem within the next few decades. Nuclear power is a proven technology, and there really isn't any question that it could supply the UKs energy needs (see france). I'm not so sure that you can make the same claim for a windpower project of this type or magnitude. And if the government is wrong, and wind can't close the gap, it will be a lot harder to change course five or ten years from now.

Cynically though, I don't think that the coal stations are going to be taken offline. I suspect that nothing will be accomplished in either direction, and extensions will be granted to the lifespan of already aging infrastructure, EU directives aside.

Nuclear power is a proven technology, and there really isn't any question that it could supply the UKs energy needs (see france).
I'm not questioning that in any way. I'm questioning the price we (and our descendants) may pay for current energy supply.

I'm not so sure that you can make the same claim for a windpower project of this type or magnitude.
This isn't just a windpower project, this is a renewable energy project. Investment in sustainable energy technologies (and that's investment in new technology, not simply building windfarms or hydro stations) hasn't been anywhere like the sort of investment nuclear or fossil fuels have had in the past few decades.

Cynically though, I don't think that the coal stations are going to be taken offline. I suspect that nothing will be accomplished in either direction, and extensions will be granted to the lifespan of already aging infrastructure, EU directives aside.
I share some of that cynicism.

Your or my descendants might want to live in Whoop Whoop in the next 100, 1000, 10000, etc., years time. I wouldn't want them living in toxic sludge.

Well where the waste is currently being dumped would be considered as such and prevent people from living in that area, the same way towns divide their areas into industrial and residential areas.

This isn't just a windpower project, this is a renewable energy project. Investment in sustainable energy technologies (and that's investment in new technology, not simply building windfarms or hydro stations) hasn't been anywhere like the sort of investment nuclear or fossil fuels have had in the past few decades.


Fair enough. But that's even more scary. 10% (more or less of GDP) in 'new' unspecified technologies. This would have been a good idea 10-15 years ago. But it seems a little late to try and switch tracks and hope it works now. Especially with the uncertainty around the UKs finances.

Still that's the UK government all over.

Well where the waste is currently being dumped would be considered as such and prevent people from living in that area
For the next 1,000-100,000 years?

That's some fucking urban planning.

Fair enough. But that's even more scary. 10% (more or less of GDP) in 'new' unspecified technologies. This would have been a good idea 10-15 years ago. But it seems a little late to try and switch tracks and hope it works now.
Why so?

For the next 1,000-100,000 years?

That's some fucking urban planning.

And urban planning that will need to be done, place a restriction zone around the area, it would be after all at the present time be placed in an unhospitable area where to go and live would be almost considered madness.

For the next 1,000-100,000 years?

That's some fucking urban planning.


It's surprisingly quick, if you have a newer OS and set the speed to "African Swallow."

It's surprisingly quick, if you have a newer OS and set the speed to "African Swallow."

:D And you have to tick the box "No Disasters"

:D And you have to tick the box "No Disasters"

Of course, I forgot.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever had a monster attack their city without it being called? I've had fires, riots, floods, crashes, tornadoes, but no monsters.

Why so?

Because the UK is facing an energy deficit within the next few decades. Both the conservatives and labour have neglected the infrastructure for the past thirty odd years. So if the renewables don't pan out as expected, there will be severe shortages.

If the current infrastructure wasn't so aging, this wouldn't be a problem because there would be room to maneuver. As is, it's a lot to place on a roll of the dice.

And investment aside, people have been looking for the renewable magic bullet for forty years now, and aren't all that much closer. If it was that easy, the japanese (who have virtually no natural resources to speak of) would have probably found it.

And urban planning that will need to be done, place a restriction zone around the area, it would be after all at the present time be placed in an unhospitable area where to go and live would be almost considered madness.
Once again, I'd highlight the length of time, 1,000-100,000 years, that this place has got to be kept safe. We can't say that in 1,000 years, let alone 100,000, places that we consider inhospitable now will still be inhospitable then. Moreover, we don't want to be preventing future humans from inhabiting certain places on the Earth because of our waste.

Imagine if the Vikings or the Knights Templar buried large amounts of incredibly dangerous material in places they though 'inhospitable'. Half of the US and the Middle East would be unfit to live in today.


It's surprisingly quick, if you have a newer OS and set the speed to "African Swallow."
Yeah, but it launches off into space, and where are you then?

Once again, I'd highlight the length of time, 1,000-100,000 years, that this place has got to be kept safe. We can't say that in 1,000 years, let alone 100,000, places that we consider inhospitable now will still be inhospitable then. Moreover, we don't want to be preventing future humans from inhabiting certain places on the Earth because of our waste.

Which is something I did acknowledge in my post, but in all seriousness here what do you suggest we do with the current nuclear waste that we are producing, which in some circumstances is not a by product of nuclear power.

Of course, I forgot.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever had a monster attack their city without it being called? I've had fires, riots, floods, crashes, tornadoes, but no monsters.

I never have and I have had plenty of cities that have lasted for centuries.

Yeah, but it launches off into space, and where are you then?

Which (presumably) SimCity is this?

You understand that there is a difference between dollars and pounds, right?

Unnecessary, of course I underderstand the difference between dollars and pounds.

Now, go look at the currency your sources quote, and think again.

I'll go with the world bank, which gives, 2.3 trillion dollars, or about 1.2 trillion pounds (1 pound being roughly equal to 2 dollars).

Whoops my bad, didn't check the currencies properly.

Which (presumably) SimCity is this?
Arcologia, of course!

Which (presumably) SimCity is this?
SimCity 2000.

SimCity 2000.

Cool, retro. :cool:

Once again, I'd highlight the length of time, 1,000-100,000 years, that this place has got to be kept safe. We can't say that in 1,000 years, let alone 100,000, places that we consider inhospitable now will still be inhospitable then. Moreover, we don't want to be preventing future humans from inhabiting certain places on the Earth because of our waste.

Imagine if the Vikings or the Knights Templar buried large amounts of incredibly dangerous material in places they though 'inhospitable'. Half of the US and the Middle East would be unfit to live in today.


Well look, that's exactly what antarctica is for. There is some bit down there which is a desert and has no life apart from a few scrubby lichen. So, problem solved.

Well look, that's exactly what antarctica is for. There is some bit down there which is a desert and has no life apart from a few scrubby lichen. So, problem solved.There is? I mean, yeah, it's a desert, since the water is frozen, but no life?

There is? I mean, yeah, it's a desert, since the water is frozen, but no life?

As I said, a few scrubby lichen. Which is kind of life. But a very dull and boring sort. I'm fairly sure the world can plod on without its inconsequential contribution. (If it's even effected by a nuclear waste dump).

And look on the positive side. It could become a world nuclear dump; making us all co-operate for peace and harmony and blah blah shit.

Well look, that's exactly what antarctica is for. There is some bit down there which is a desert and has no life apart from a few scrubby lichen. So, problem solved.
For up to the next 1000 centuries?

Geography changes quite a bit over that sort of time-scale.

As I said, a few scrubby lichen. Which is kind of life. But a very dull and boring sort. I'm fairly sure the world can plod on without its inconsequential contribution. (If it's even effected by a nuclear waste dump).

And look on the positive side. It could become a world nuclear dump; making us all co-operate for peace and harmony and blah blah shit.You want me to list the reasons why that's not feasible or ethical or can you come up with them on your own?

You want me to list the reasons why that's not feasible or ethical or can you come up with them on your own?

No, you list them.

No, you list them.Penguins tend to live in the antarctic. Likewise, there's a disturbing trend in ice shelf breakage, which is likely caused by increased temperatures. This in turn bodes ill for plans on digging into frozen ground, as the melting of the permafrost causes unpleasant side effects (see Siberia and Alaska for examples).
Not to mention the cost. Digging into frozen ground in a place that doesn't support a permanent population and is a good distance away from most industrialized countries (not to mention nuclear power plants), is going to be a nightmare where logistics and maintenance are concerned, probably to the extent that it makes the idea of 100% renewable energy supplies realistic.

Now, a serious proposition would have taken the whole logistics and maintenance factors into account, which is why I wager your proposition was more nonsensical in nature than an actual suggested alternative.

You know, if we nuked Antarctica, the melting caused by global warming would become negligible… *ponders*

Penguins tend to live in the antarctic. Likewise, there's a disturbing trend in ice shelf breakage, which is likely caused by increased temperatures. This in turn bodes ill for plans on digging into frozen ground, as the melting of the permafrost causes unpleasant side effects (see Siberia and Alaska for examples).
Not to mention the cost. Digging into frozen ground in a place that doesn't support a permanent population and is a good distance away from most industrialized countries (not to mention nuclear power plants), is going to be a nightmare where logistics and maintenance are concerned, probably to the extent that it makes the idea of 100% renewable energy supplies realistic.

Now, a serious proposition would have taken the whole logistics and maintenance factors into account, which is why I wager your proposition was more nonsensical in nature than an actual suggested alternative.

Yeah, no worries mate, I'm talking about the bit with no ice and no penguins. Or indeed no permafrost because it is all rocky. Logistics and maintenance? Well, we already piss away so much to keep a polar expeditionary station going for fun and not profit, so while it might cost a bit, I don't think it is an insurmountable problem.

Yeah, no worries mate, I'm talking about the bit with no ice and no penguins. Or indeed no permafrost because it is all rocky. Logistics and maintenance? Well, we already piss away so much to keep a polar expeditionary station going for fun and not profit, so while it might cost a bit, I don't think it is an insurmountable problem.This time it's your turn to list reasons why that's a stupid idea.

Cool, retro. :cool:
And still one of the best versions; if not the best.

Though I have fond memories of the BBC Micro version.

And still one of the best versions; if not the best.

Though I have fond memories of the BBC Micro version.

My heart belongs to the games that dot the landscape between the SimCities. SimIsle, SimAnt, SimTower, SimEarth… these were the games of my childhood.

This time it's your turn to list reasons why that's a stupid idea.

It might be a tad expensive. But other than that, I can't think of one.

And changeover from oil is going to be expensive anyway.

How radioactive is the nuclear waste again, Chumbly? I could've sworn several people have been pointing to sources that show coal ash is more radioactive.

Personally, I'm all in favor of stuffing nuclear waste back into the uranium mines it originally came from. Those places are already irradiated anyway, an dit's not like nuclear waste is more radioactive than the raw uranium(it's probably less...)

SimCity 2000.

Cool, retro. :cool:

There are more recent Simcity's then this?

*feels out of the loop*

How radioactive is the nuclear waste again, Chumbly? I could've sworn several people have been pointing to sources that show coal ash is more radioactive.
Depends on what waste you're talking about. Low and intermediate-level waste, which comprises most of the nuclear waste produced in the world, is relatively safe, but high-level waste (of which, IIRC, 10,000+ metric tons is produced globally p/a) is pretty nasty stuff.

Certainly more dangerous than the low-level radiation found in coal deposits.

Depends on what waste you're talking about. Low and intermediate-level waste, which comprises most of the nuclear waste produced in the world, is relatively safe, but high-level waste (of which, IIRC, 10,000+ metric tons is produced globally p/a) is pretty nasty stuff.

Certainly more dangerous than the low-level radiation found in coal deposits.

Still, it can't be as bad as the original uranium.

100 billion to build wind turbines to supply 15% of our electrical energy needs.

Brilliant wish I could be paid to come up with stupid ideas like that

If the government is going to spend money like that on non co2 emitting things , why does'nt it buy 20 sizewell 'B' power stations (output 1.2 Mw) that will generate about 30% of our electrical needs.

That means we get twice as much power for our money and we dont have blackouts when the windspeed drops :cool:

To generate the UK's energy by wind turbine will take at least 35 000 of the things, plus siting another 20 000 of the things all over the country to ensure power generation when the wind drops out regionally. and then some nice gas powered stations and hydro stations on standby 100% of the time to cover any load imbalances.

Eg if the wind drops out south of London , you cant just switch London' supply to areas from the north because the grid wont be able to take supplying northern england AND London at the same time unless you uprate the grid to be able to cope(ie more £££££)
Or would you prefer being stuck 90 ft underground when the tube power supply switches off..............

100 billion to build wind turbines to supply 15% of our electrical energy needs.

Brilliant wish I could be paid to come up with stupid ideas like that
15% is no small total, and seeing as people are going to be using less power what with energy saving lightbulbs and the increasing not-crapness of A-rated appliances, that's probably going to go up.
If the government is going to spend money like that on non co2 emitting things , why does'nt it buy 20 sizewell 'B' power stations (output 1.2 Mw) that will generate about 30% of our electrical needs.
Because we already have a massive backlog of waste, both from us and from the French and Germans, at Sellafield, and the reprocessing plant has pretty much fallen apart, and is so irradiated that workmen can only go in to fix it for 10 minutes a day. Which is then reversed through the rest of the day.
That means we get twice as much power for our money and we dont have blackouts when the windspeed drops
The problem is one of the storage of nuclear waste, and having enough well-qualified people able to run the things.
To generate the UK's energy by wind turbine will take at least 35 000 of the things, plus siting another 20 000 of the things all over the country to ensure power generation when the wind drops out regionally and then some nice gas powered stations and hydro stations on standby 100% of the time to cover any load imbalances.
Which is why we're not going to be running the country off wind turbines any time soon. Seeing as Great Britain is pretty much made from coal, and we're still makes with Canada, we can use that for power for quite a while yet, we'll be building another generation of nuclear power stations in time and we still have a few gas power stations, as well as our hydroelectric stations.

We're not going to be knocking down our existing stations just to prove a point about how green we are...
Eg if the wind drops out south of London , you cant just switch London' supply to areas from the north because the grid wont be able to take supplying northern england AND London at the same time unless you uprate the grid to be able to cope(ie more £££££)
I don't think anyone's asking for the entire power network to be switched to wind power.
Or would you prefer being stuck 90 ft underground when the tube power supply switches off..............
The London underground has emergency generators to make sure everyone gets to a station and can get out, for just this instance, not that we'll need them.

Still, it can't be as bad as the original uranium.
Uranium in yellowcakes is actually not all that radioactive IIRC.

Still, it can't be as bad as the original uranium.
I don't know either way, and I don't see any imediately obvious scientific reason why it'd be one way or the other.

100 billion to build wind turbines to supply 15% of our electrical energy needs.
Jesus, people! It's £100 bn on renewables in eneral, not just wind turbines.

How many times?