ChatterBank18 mins ago
Yet Another Issue Caused By The Left.
45 Answers
http://
This was known about in Blairs day, when they had some money. Shame they squandered it on right-on projects like wind farms and failed multi cultural experiments.
And four years into the coalition Government, stiull reality has not sunk in. It's coal, gas or Nuclear or the lights will go out. With even the most basic of generators taking 3 years to build time is running out fast. Wind will not fill the gap in any shape or form.
Energy Minister Matt Hancock said lights would stay on across the country, well he would do, but with only 4% buffer he had better have his fingers crossed there are no problems with any of the current generators.
My, what a mess.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/in Blairs day/
do you have links to the other parties in Blair's time campaigning on a 'we'll build more nuclear generators' platform?
Like many fundamental concerns; pensions, healthcare etc this is an issue that has been put off by all the main parties and trying to twist it into a party political one just diverts people from the decisions that need to be made.
As an aside, socialist governments aren't exactly unknown in France, and that hasn't prevented them from getting their energy act together
do you have links to the other parties in Blair's time campaigning on a 'we'll build more nuclear generators' platform?
Like many fundamental concerns; pensions, healthcare etc this is an issue that has been put off by all the main parties and trying to twist it into a party political one just diverts people from the decisions that need to be made.
As an aside, socialist governments aren't exactly unknown in France, and that hasn't prevented them from getting their energy act together
/Politicians of all sides are terrified of upsetting the tree huggers./
glad you agree it's not a party political issue T3
interestingly, James Lovelock, the godfather of environmentalism, now backs nuclear power as the only viable prevention of environmental damage:
/In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfill the large scale energy needs of humankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions. He is an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy./
glad you agree it's not a party political issue T3
interestingly, James Lovelock, the godfather of environmentalism, now backs nuclear power as the only viable prevention of environmental damage:
/In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfill the large scale energy needs of humankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions. He is an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy./
Really Gromit?
So Blair and Co were not in charge, it was all down to other campaigning parties - I see.
Trying to twist what? It's fact; labour should have started Nuclear plant building when they had the time and the money instead of squandering it. How can You twist it from that?
So I guess it is all ok because Gromit says it is. Odd the Analyst on the telly doesnt agree with you but then yo ualways know better than the experts dont you?
So Blair and Co were not in charge, it was all down to other campaigning parties - I see.
Trying to twist what? It's fact; labour should have started Nuclear plant building when they had the time and the money instead of squandering it. How can You twist it from that?
So I guess it is all ok because Gromit says it is. Odd the Analyst on the telly doesnt agree with you but then yo ualways know better than the experts dont you?
Zeuhl is quite right, this is not the fault of any particular party or government. All in recent years have been guilty of acceding to ridiculous “carbon” targets whilst jeopardising the nation’s energy security. The rot set in when it was decided that burning coal was a bad thing. Until then coal fired power stations formed a vital part of the nation’s energy production. Nuclear power stations have always been seen by many as an abomination of the devil incarnate (despite the fact that more people are killed in coal mining accidents every year than have ever been killed in nuclear accidents).
Now, in pursuance of that ideology, we see wind turbines and solar panels produced at a huge cost in carbon outputs (whilst contributing very little to the nation’s energy requirements), we see tens of thousands of trees felled, their wood turned into pellets which are transported thousands of miles to be burned at about one tenth of the efficiency of coal and we see a comparatively minor incident such as that at Didcot placing the country’s energy security of a knife edge as winter approaches.
We need to build nuclear power stations, reinstate the coal fired plants that have been shut down (many of them entirely, not simply shut for conversion to wood) and consider our own requirements instead of worrying about everybody else’s.
Now, in pursuance of that ideology, we see wind turbines and solar panels produced at a huge cost in carbon outputs (whilst contributing very little to the nation’s energy requirements), we see tens of thousands of trees felled, their wood turned into pellets which are transported thousands of miles to be burned at about one tenth of the efficiency of coal and we see a comparatively minor incident such as that at Didcot placing the country’s energy security of a knife edge as winter approaches.
We need to build nuclear power stations, reinstate the coal fired plants that have been shut down (many of them entirely, not simply shut for conversion to wood) and consider our own requirements instead of worrying about everybody else’s.
/Trying to twist what? It's fact; labour should have started Nuclear plant building when they had the time and the money instead of squandering it. How can You twist it from that? /
Is that what Major and Thatcher had been doing immediately prior?
This is a long term strategy surely and not just a problem created in 1997?
Is that what Major and Thatcher had been doing immediately prior?
This is a long term strategy surely and not just a problem created in 1997?
//Does that mean they will tear down the wind farm that ruined my home village //
according to a friend who does his level best to maintain them, they won't need to tear them down since they're very likely to self destruct of their own accord. conditions inside are often appalling as the mechanical parts leak oil like it's going out of fashion.
according to a friend who does his level best to maintain them, they won't need to tear them down since they're very likely to self destruct of their own accord. conditions inside are often appalling as the mechanical parts leak oil like it's going out of fashion.
Given how long Nuclear plants can take to set up, the ones that ought to have been coming online around about now should have been commissioned in possibly the mid-90's. Which makes it also Major's fault. But it's both side's fault, really.
The basic problem is that Nuclear power is expensive and in recent years no-one wants to fund it. The Green lobby can sometimes bring benefits (let's face it, cleaner energy is not a bad thing really!) but in the case of Nuclear power it's got it totally wrong, and made the issue politically dangerous to go near. It's hardly Labour's fault. Labour doesn't run things in Germany for example, where all Nuclear plants are being shut down because of meaningless and irrational fears in the wake of Fukushima disaster.
You can, if you like, blame it on the far left. But then it's the Right's fault too, for listening!
The basic problem is that Nuclear power is expensive and in recent years no-one wants to fund it. The Green lobby can sometimes bring benefits (let's face it, cleaner energy is not a bad thing really!) but in the case of Nuclear power it's got it totally wrong, and made the issue politically dangerous to go near. It's hardly Labour's fault. Labour doesn't run things in Germany for example, where all Nuclear plants are being shut down because of meaningless and irrational fears in the wake of Fukushima disaster.
You can, if you like, blame it on the far left. But then it's the Right's fault too, for listening!
/We need to build nuclear power stations, reinstate the coal fired plants that have been shut down /
Indeed NJ - technology has also provided new processes for removing many of the 'nasties' from the chimney outputs.
However, I would put in a word for domestic solar panels which will be compulsory for new builds from 2015.
We had 16 panels installed this spring for a modest outlay and they are paying their way whilst being reasonably inconspicuous.
Domestic panels are not going to solve the nation's energy problem but putting our roofs to work seems a sensible contribution.
Indeed NJ - technology has also provided new processes for removing many of the 'nasties' from the chimney outputs.
However, I would put in a word for domestic solar panels which will be compulsory for new builds from 2015.
We had 16 panels installed this spring for a modest outlay and they are paying their way whilst being reasonably inconspicuous.
Domestic panels are not going to solve the nation's energy problem but putting our roofs to work seems a sensible contribution.
Yes, quite so, Zeuhl. They are OK to contribute a little to one's energy requirements but of course cannot be relied upon to do the whole thing.
Nuclear generated electricity may be expensive. But it is nowhere near as expensive as that created by wind turbines when considering their overall output (not their "installed capacity").
Nuclear generated electricity may be expensive. But it is nowhere near as expensive as that created by wind turbines when considering their overall output (not their "installed capacity").
TTT - I hope I'm a sensible person and not what you would describe as a 'tree-hugger'. I am, for instance, against onshore wind-farms because they are very inefficient and cause harm to wildlife as well as noise pollution and light disturbance at night. I've talked to several engineers about this and they confirm the inefficiency.
Solar panels, however, do not have to cover valuable farmland. There are several farms near to us where all the roofs of the barns and sheds are covered in panels. Energy is supplied with no loss of acreage for crop-growing and no-one notices them. That seems sensible to me.
The other form of alternative energy I would support is tidal power - you can guarantee that the tides come in and out so investment will be returned in time. China is investigating geo-thermal energy at the moment with very promising results.
My daughter has just invested in what I think is called an 'air-heat exchange' system (old oil-tank had sprung a leak and it was going to be hugely expensive to sort it out). That seems to work pretty well so far.
I would like to see some coal-mines re-opened. With new technology they could, I'm informed, be profitable and this would revitalise many communities.
We can see the steam from the cooling towers of our local nuclear power station from our house, so I'm not frightened of nuclear power, but I think that a spread of supply is the best answer.
Solar panels, however, do not have to cover valuable farmland. There are several farms near to us where all the roofs of the barns and sheds are covered in panels. Energy is supplied with no loss of acreage for crop-growing and no-one notices them. That seems sensible to me.
The other form of alternative energy I would support is tidal power - you can guarantee that the tides come in and out so investment will be returned in time. China is investigating geo-thermal energy at the moment with very promising results.
My daughter has just invested in what I think is called an 'air-heat exchange' system (old oil-tank had sprung a leak and it was going to be hugely expensive to sort it out). That seems to work pretty well so far.
I would like to see some coal-mines re-opened. With new technology they could, I'm informed, be profitable and this would revitalise many communities.
We can see the steam from the cooling towers of our local nuclear power station from our house, so I'm not frightened of nuclear power, but I think that a spread of supply is the best answer.
I hope that power cuts are not needed this winter, but if they are, perhaps they can pull the plug on all the households that have nimbys living in them.
You know the ones...the ones that didn't want wind generators anywhere near them, ditto with nuclear power stations, and didn't want the smoky coal fired stations either. If we start by cutting off their power first, perhaps the rest of us will be spared any outages.
You know the ones...the ones that didn't want wind generators anywhere near them, ditto with nuclear power stations, and didn't want the smoky coal fired stations either. If we start by cutting off their power first, perhaps the rest of us will be spared any outages.
In reallity the country needs an integrated energy policy with an optimised mix of energy sources which takes into account energy security,public safety and environmenyal impact as well as basic economics.. This can only be driven by the government..not much hope of that, though that is what goverment should be doing.
Latest Posts
News24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.