kersh

labour are going to get kicked out? wonder who is going to give them all jobs-the energy companies of course.
massive expansion of wind farms-what happens if the wind doesn't blow?
I'm sure I have already seen a programme about wind power not being the answer, the wind farms don't produce anything like the energy their supposed to, reliable.

subaruturbo_18

Answering your query about wind power....Windfarms can produce enough power, IF you have the right wind to power them, and we don't here. If you want a wind turbine on your roof or somewhere to help power your home, you should have a constant minimum wind speed of about 5m/s. Very few places in the uk have that all year round, and considering that with that wind speed it would only start saving you money after about 5 years or so its really not worth it.

Nuclear fission is the answer

subaruturbo_18

Oh and i don't think the government are aiming for a future with windfarms, i think they are looking in to carbon capturing. Basically they catch all the carbon bi-products and bury them deep underground where it cannot affect the atmosphere

subaruturbo_18

Ah yep, fusion not fission. Always confuse the two lol. Fusion is still in development though isn't it? if i am correct they reckon by 2050 they might have something worthwhile

I heard that carbon capturing was what they were doing. We were studying a lot of this at uni in our last term. Naturally all my posts are open to 'constructive criticism' so i can accept i'm wrong at times.

WRX_Dazza

dont mention "ducks", some people have a phobia of them dont'cha know

Martin2005

These wind farms are to be off-shore, and in some cases 100 miles off-shore. I'm pretty sure there is plenty of wind to be had out there.

I agree Nuclear power is also a good option.

Wind and any other form of sustainable source cannot be a bad thing can it?

I read that these new 'farms' will produce enough energy to power 17M homes, that's pretty impressive if true, is it not?

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

who, stiggy?

richieh

Wind farms on the face of it seem like a reasonable idea but no one seems to have considered what effect they are going to have on the weather in this country based on the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form into another-same goes for geothermal energy really.
Guess we'll find out if the powers that be push it thru-personally i like a little breeze on a warm day-wonder if ripping the energy out of the breeze will leave stuff like rain fronts sat over the country for longer?
cheers richie

subaruturbo_18

Yes its fantastic. Trouble is i think there is a huge cost involved to install them and then to transfer the power back to mainland. Plus of course jobs going to foreigners (theeeeyyyy took ouur joobs.......south park anyone )

But using coal reserves in the mean time would be the best option. I would have thought that would see us through until nuclear fusion could become operational.

dunx

iTrader: (3)

Forty years ago they told us that fusion reactors were "just around the corner"....... Still no closer, we need Klingon technology soon as !

Huge wind farms built at what cost ? We will be screwed by them on price once we are reliant on them due to "eco"/carbon policies.

If wind farms produced Hydrogen we could use that in fuel cells

We are going to be raped for gas in the future so coal is our only cost effective solution. Sod the eco-warriors bleating, add some hi-tech and it should be do-able.

IMHO

dunx

subaruturbo_18

I'm suprised knowone has mentioned Solar panels.....

mart360

Mart,

here is 100 miles offshore.

http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm

selrct 100 mile radius, and place them at points around the coast

So that rules out the channel, and the Irish sea.

At 100 miles out, there going to need structures, approaching North sea

rigs, to keep these puppys upright, not to mention the need to keep them

secure, maintained etc.

Biggest question? who is going to fund them? us?!! the energy companys?

I seem to recall the last government spin on Nuclear power, how it was

going to provide electricity for pennys.

White elephant springs to mind.


mart

Klaatu

Problem with this is that if we suck all the CO2 out of the air, or to some "optimum" (Whatever that is), and drop CO2 below 200ppm, plants die. Plants die, animals die. Animals die, we die. Also, taking CO2 out of the air takes O2 too. Take O2 out of the air, we die (Ok, we are mostly 78% nitrogen breathers). Can you detect the trend?

subaruturbo_18

Oh, dont get me wrong i completely agree with what your saying> I was just under the impression that they were looking to use this method as it is probably the cheapest but, 1. Labour could tax alot and since it would be cheaper than wind turbines they'd make more money from it, and 2. It looks appealing to the typical ignorant global warming fear filled individual since they would be taking the bad nasty carbons out of the air and burying them deep underground towards the devil.

So due to these facts helping them get a vote and a bit of cash i thought it would be there prime choice. But i suppose wind farms are slightly better for the earth. But if we had to pay for them as tax payers and then give jobs to foreigners its not ethically right for us.

Nuclear all the way for me !

Leslie

We have so much coal left underground that it is a dreadful waste not to use it. I imagine that efficient burners and CO2 scrubbers would reduce pollution, It all depends on how you regard GBW of course.

I also think that the best plan is to go for nuclear energy on way or the other. The biggest objection is disposal of nuclear waste of course but I am sure that this can be overcome.

This country will be held to ransom for gas supplies eventually unless we suddenly find a vast new supply of our own since our own supplies are dwindling. I imagine that the economic boost of having our own gas supplies has been thrown away with everything else! They could not even engineer suitable stores of gas to get us through this spell.

Les

subaruturbo_18

Nuclear fission produces bi-products that have a half life of around 1,500 years, where as nuclear fusion produces those which only have half lives of about 5 and a half years. These are facts that i have read at university, but i have had 4 and a half weeks off and we only brushed on this particular topic so i could be slightly wrong. Please feel free to correct me if you know better.

Klaatu

And so overstated by the MSM.

Chip

Les

Has your gas run out then?? No it hasn't and it won't either.

Chip

subaruturbo_18

MSM?

Klaatu

Main Stream Media.

boomer

I read somewhere that wind farms could be made out of jelly and ice cream, and that they could power every single car in the world for 11.25 years.

Then again, i was reading a silly notepad.exe document that i had just typed

"Made-up science, a CRU speciality"

Cheers,

mb

subaruturbo_18

Where can i get one of these?

warrenm2

From your friendly neighbourhood Labour MP's press office....

Luan Pra bang

A sustainable energy plan is needed whether you believe in MMGW or not. Carbon capture is a method for removong the CO2 at source ie at the power station that generates it. Methods for removing carbon for the air in general have proved to be unworkable so far. Nuclear power has some advantages but it is not a renewable energy source, there is a finite amount of Uranium in the world although current reserves indicate that at current consumption the reserves can power the world for 100 ish years. Although some peope think that new reserves will be found stretching this to thousands of years.
Wind power is a very workable solution for a proportion of our energy needs possibly 5-10% of the UKs energy requirements it will probably never be more thatn that but the solution will have to be one based and a variety of methods to fill the gap left by fossil fuels.
I am pretty sure the deserts in central africa can supply enough solar power to power all of Europe, the issues have been about transmission over large distances but new methods have been developed to enable the transmission of electricity of large distances with much greater efficiency. HVDC cable transmission may not be required though if Hydrogen can be split from water at point of generateion then transported as a fuel. Remember though that solar towers can generate electricity from the sun as well as photo voltaics.
Claiming that one single source of energy is a pannacea is wrong whoever does it, there are a vast number of ways to generate energy and fining a blend of the best ones can produce a complete energy solution should any government really want to do it.

Martin2005

Oh good well you'll be able to give me the 'real' answer then wont you.

boomer

OK, I'll bite

According to the BBC...

...so that's about five million households, not the seventeen million that you "read" about (somewhere, in an un-referenced journal).

And please don't come back with a load of guff like "well theoretically you could power 17M homes if they didn't have anybody in them and just had a TV left on stand-by"

mb

p.s. Oh, and i don't claim this to necessarily be a "real answer", just one with a little background to justify it (unlike our friends at the CRU).

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

Every morning when I wake up and start the first toilet ritual, I could generate enough wind to power our house for the week. Even more if I have had mushy peas

Martin2005

Firstly I don't even know how the CRU are.

This story with the 17 million (which I was quite open about my own skeptism about) was on BBC News ITV NEWS and SKY NEWs. So I'm just stating what was reported, without prejudice (you should try it), I don't own the story and have nothing invested either way.

So there's nothing to 'bite' on, I'm interested in thr truth, not a load of dogmatic BS

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh, the irony