Major Earthquake N Japan - Pacific Tsunami Warning

[McFaul 35]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

Edited March 15, 2011 by McFaul

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Noel Edmonds is in favor of renewable energy. Do you still support it?

[Renton 18564]

Portugal has a tiny population compared with us and have a suitable climate for solar power, we are much more like France. You'd need to cover up half of North Tyneside with panels to charge my mobile phone. Not feasible. As for wind power, what happens when it's not windy/too windy? Part of the solution maybe, but a small part.

[Renton 18564]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

[McFaul 35]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Could you expand Stevie (not literally, get down to 14st)? Why is the manufacturing pollution not a valid criticism?

Edited March 15, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[McFaul 35]

Could you expand Stevie (not literally, get down to 14st)? Why is the manufacturing pollution not a valid criticism?

Are you seriously suggesting that manufacturing wind turbines causes more pollution than burning fossil fuels? If you manutacture anything at all, it will produce some pollution, but that would be so minimal when you think it's going produce a clean efficient long lasting energy source, it truly isn't worth talking about.

[Renton 18564]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

[Renton 18564]

Could you expand Stevie (not literally, get down to 14st)? Why is the manufacturing pollution not a valid criticism?

Are you seriously suggesting that manufacturing wind turbines causes more pollution than burning fossil fuels? If you manutacture anything at all, it will produce some pollution, but that would be so minimal when you think it's going produce a clean efficient long lasting energy source, it truly isn't worth talking about.

 

It's one of the main arguments Greens use against nuclear technology.

[McFaul 35]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil.

 

As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

[McFaul 35]

Could you expand Stevie (not literally, get down to 14st)? Why is the manufacturing pollution not a valid criticism?

Are you seriously suggesting that manufacturing wind turbines causes more pollution than burning fossil fuels? If you manutacture anything at all, it will produce some pollution, but that would be so minimal when you think it's going produce a clean efficient long lasting energy source, it truly isn't worth talking about.

 

It's one of the main arguments Greens use against nuclear technology.

Well they're just attention seeking mugs who like a good protest most of them.

[Renton 18564]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil.

 

As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

 

Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries?

 

I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated.

[McFaul 35]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil.

 

As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

 

Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries?

 

I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated.

The North Sea aye, known for it's tranquil still conditions. You say that intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Why???? Explain definitively why.

[Renton 18564]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil.

 

As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

 

Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries?

 

I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated.

The North Sea aye, known for it's tranquil still conditions. You say that intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Why???? Explain definitively why.

 

Because electricity, I mean the type you use in your house or for industry, cannot be stored, it must be constantly generated. You say the North Sea is always windy but it's not. You can have days or even weeks without any, or little wind. Even too much wind stops turbines working. During which time we'd be screwed without any electricity at all - no computers, fridges, TVs, lights, electric trains, telecommunications etc. Therefore you have to have a constant source to rely on as well - a good old fashioned nuclear, gas, or coal fired station. Wind energy can never really make up more than 20% of the total in fact.

[McFaul 35]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil.

 

As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

 

Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries?

 

I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated.

The North Sea aye, known for it's tranquil still conditions. You say that intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Why???? Explain definitively why.

 

Because electricity, I mean the type you use in your house or for industry, cannot be stored, it must be constantly generated. You say the North Sea is always windy but it's not. You can have days or even weeks without any, or little wind. Even too much wind stops turbines working. During which time we'd be screwed without any electricity at all - no computers, fridges, TVs, lights, electric trains, telecommunications etc. Therefore you have to have a constant source to rely on as well - a good old fashioned nuclear, gas, or coal fired station. Wind energy can never really make up more than 20% of the total in fact.

Says who?

[Renton 18564]

Just about everyone I think. There's an article on wiki which goes into detail about the problems of intermittency and capacity associated with wind power, for instance. But isn't it common sense that no wind means no power?

[trophyshy 6567]

Even the most optimistic uptake forecasts for community renewable energy leave us painfully short. The Feed in Tariffs and Renewable Heat Incentive are the combined best efforts in the world to accelerate low carbon transition. It was increasingly agreed that nuclear would have to play its part, even bleeding heart, tree spooning, attention seeking greens were coming to this conclusion.

 

Looks like we will be putting our faith in carbon capture technology and coal for a while yet.

Edited March 15, 2011 by trophyshy

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Well I like renewable energy, but I also like nuclear energy...

 

But which one's best? There's only one way to find out

Edited March 15, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Anth 63]

Portugal has a tiny population compared with us and have a suitable climate for solar power, we are much more like France. You'd need to cover up half of North Tyneside with panels to charge my mobile phone. Not feasible. As for wind power, what happens when it's not windy/too windy? Part of the solution maybe, but a small part.

Talking of renewable energy, I see the site of the new Science Centre is planning on being used as a source of Geothermal Energy. Interesting, though not sure if using it to heat eldon square is far fetched!

 

Newcastle Geothermal Energy

[Park Life 71]

The bbc only seem to be worried about whether life is getting back to normal in Tokyo. Honestly the BBc coverage is so low grade it is laughable.

 

In the real world.

 

 

One reactor with partial meltdown.

2 others have blown outer casing in an effort to cool and release pressure.

4th reactor now at risk with fire at rod storage nearby started last night.

One of these has mox fuel which has as much doom associated with it as one can imagine x2000 more nightmare than the normal fuel.

 

What's going on now is feed and bleed - water in radioactive steam out....

[ChezGiven 0]

I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc.

 

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too...

 

There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy.

 

In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

 

Isn't that preferable/safer?

 

It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

 

How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified.

The population is 1/6th, so I'd guess near that level. Not one person can or has explained why we can't put thousands of huge wind turbines, the size we've never seen before in the North Sea. There's no such thing as limitless wind power, if we have the will we can do it. Freddy Shepherd has the vision to do it, will private companies and the government have the will to do it. Regardless what arguments you put up, it's not impossible, and it's safe. It's the type of vision the Halls and the Shepherds had at NUFC, and look where we ended up.

 

Are you happy with your freezer regularly defrosting when we have anticyclonic conditions?

 

Apart from that there's the cost, the ugliness of them and their effect on wildlife, and the fact they're technically unreliable and need frequent replacing. You also have to manufacture them which wipes out most their carbon credentials.

The effect on wildlife? What thirty miles out at sea? A few fish bumping their heads isn't going to cause an ecological disaster. Technically unreliable? Are you an expert on the new modern techniques they're developing? The ugliness of them, if you have them 30 miles offshore who's going to care apart from a few Uncle Albert types, as I'm sure you're aware you can't see anything in a straight line from your view point that is further than 22 miles away due to the shape of the world. As for the manufacturing pollution, you can't be serious?

 

I'm no expert, but are you? If this was a cost-effective solution, why's it not already been done to a greater extent?

 

You've completely ignored my first and most important point. They provide only an intermittent source of energy so can never be our main energy resource.

 

I don't personally care about sea gulls getting decapitated but plenty of other people do. Regarding their ugliness, the further out you build them, the more expensive they are. The North Sea is up to 400 feet deep, how are you going to anchor them? The cost would be astronomical.

 

I think somebody in the know on here said they were technically unreliable. Apparently at any single point in time, even with ideal wind conditions, a fair proportion are out of commission. The manufacture of them and their spare parts is of course going to effect the environment indirectly, you have to factor it in.

 

I'll be interested if you address point one anyway, it's a fundamental flaw as far as I can tell.

The future of the planet is at stake, and the government were considering FFS proposals strongly until the cut backs, they all agree something like this needs to happen in the next 20/30 years or we're fucked. The renewable energy industry is taking off, I can even see it in my industry, it's double the size it was two years ago, and in two years it will be double again, people are starting to take it seriously. At the end of the day long term it would pay for itself because our oil will be gone in 30 years, and we either find alternative energy sources or be ripped off to fuck off the likes of Russia and Libya for oil.

 

As for it never being our main source of energy, says who, and why not? It's almost infinite. As for the North Sea being 400 foot deep, it's over 1,000 feet deep in some places, yet oil rigs manage, they're all easily solved engineering problems of which neither you nor myself fully understand anyway.

 

Wind turbines don't produce any energy when it's not windy though? Even if I can accept other problems can be solved, how will technology ever get over that particlar problem? Rechargeable batteries?

 

I completely agree that renwables are important but intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Nuclear energy is another important piece of the equation imo, for the reasons you've stated.

The North Sea aye, known for it's tranquil still conditions. You say that intermittent sources can only ever be part of the solution. Why???? Explain definitively why.

 

Because electricity, I mean the type you use in your house or for industry, cannot be stored, it must be constantly generated. You say the North Sea is always windy but it's not. You can have days or even weeks without any, or little wind. Even too much wind stops turbines working. During which time we'd be screwed without any electricity at all - no computers, fridges, TVs, lights, electric trains, telecommunications etc. Therefore you have to have a constant source to rely on as well - a good old fashioned nuclear, gas, or coal fired station. Wind energy can never really make up more than 20% of the total in fact.

 

When the oil price went above $110 recently, the economics of renewable energy for the UK economy were better than the economics of oil (according to Chris Huhne anyway). Thats a very quick way of saying that the the equivalent energy for $110 worth of oil could be made more cheaply domestically and to supply domestic energy needs.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011...omy?INTCMP=SRCH

[ChezGiven 0]

Equivalent renewable energy, just to be clear.

[Park Life 71]

Renton is right about the continuous supply chain issue.

 

 

More from Nuke island:

 

Tokyo Electric Power has found it difficult to spray water from a helicopter to cool down a storage pool for spent nuclear fuel inside the No.4 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

 

The reactor was undergoing an inspection when the quake occurred. The firm says the temperature of the storage pool for spent nuclear fuel was 84 degrees Celsius on Monday morning, more than double the normal level. More recent temperatures are not available due to a technical failure.

 

On Tuesday morning, an explosion was heard and the roof of the building that houses the No.4 reactor was damaged. Tokyo Electric Power, the operator of the plant, says it appears a lack of coolant caused the fuel rods to be exposed, adding that a hydrogen explosion might have occurred.

If the reactor can't be cooled, the fuel rods may emit hydrogen or melt down. Tokyo Electric Power considering pouring water onto the storage pool in the containment vessel through a hole on the roof created by the blast.

 

However, the firm concluded that it would be extremely difficult to spray water from a helicopter as the hole is dozens of meters from the storage pool and a helicopter can only carry a limited amount of water on a single flight.

 

Workers are currently unable to approach the storage pool due to the high radiation levels. Tokyo Electric Company is studying the possibility of using fire engines and other options to inject water into the reactor.

 

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 03:04 +0900 (JST)"

[Ken 119]

The doomsdayers will be disappointed but the Japanese look to have things under control, and there will be no meltdown. The longer this goes the more likely that this is the case. People just fail to understand the cultural differences between the Japanese and the west. The Japanese are the most organised, most efficient and most orderly people on earth.

 

If what has happened, happened in the US or Europe they just wouldn't cope. Riots, looting, mass panic, assaults and murder, we all remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina. Katrina is a Sunday walk in the park compared to what is happening now in Japan.

[Happy Face 29]

The doomsdayers will be disappointed but the Japanese look to have things under control, and there will be no meltdown. The longer this goes the more likely that this is the case. People just fail to understand the cultural differences between the Japanese and the west. The Japanese are the most organised, most efficient and most orderly people on earth.

 

If what has happened, happened in the US or Europe they just wouldn't cope. Riots, looting, mass panic, assaults and murder, we all remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina. Katrina is a Sunday walk in the park compared to what is happening now in Japan.

 

 

Doesn't it say more about trust in governance and aid delivery than it does about any inate cumpulsion towards disorder.