The good life tv comedy programme could this be done today

rhiwfield

Cootambear,

If I were lazy (which I am) I still wouldnt cut and paste large tracts of pro nuclear propaganda even if I agree that it is a way forward.

Pls take the time to assemble and type your own thoughts rather than pasting others.

regards

rhiwfield

cootambear

rhiwfield wrote: »

Cootambear,

If I were lazy (which I am) I still wouldnt cut and paste large tracts of pro nuclear propaganda even if I agree that it is a way forward.

Pls take the time to assemble and type your own thoughts rather than pasting others.

regards

rhiwfield

Well this is the first substantial cut and paste I have done in this thread. If you were to count (dont bother) the number of words I have written versus the cutnpaste you would find the former much larger. If I was to simply reword the article and claim it as my own then it would not be my own thoughts, would it? Anyway, no one has to read it if they don`t want too

cootambear

olly300 wrote: »

cootmbear your entire post is by a supporter of nuclear energy. They are basically writing that we can only rely on nuclear energy.

There as other opponents have the view that we should rely on a mixture of sources including renewable sources like wind and tidal power. In fact some opponents include nuclear power in the mix. What they are scared of is being in the situation like we are in now relying on 2 main sources of energy to power our power stations - coal and gas plus a small amount of nuclear energy.

The real issue about nuclear energy is the decommissioning costs of plants and the storage of nuclear waste as both these costs fall directly on the future tax payers.

If nuclear power, and its future refinements, can supply us with our energy needs (carbon free don`t forget), then what`s the problem?
Of course we should not exclude other sources, windmills in windy areas, thermals in volcanically active, solar in sunny etc.The problem is that these contribute only fractionally to global needs (though can be very important in some locales).


Hydro from dams is another source, though again ironically the greens oppose Chinas dam building programme. In the name of protection of a few plants and animals, they are happy to deny rural chinese electricity, forcing them to cook food with wood. While it is great fun for us to do this 2 or 3 times a year in a barbie, year round the filthy smoke is severely lung damaging.


You make a fair point about decomissioning costs. For many years they were not included in the costs estimates of nuclear power production Thatchers priority was to present British coal as too expensive as part of her war to destroy the NUM. But things get more efficient. Houses are built with better insulation. Your washer uses less power. So do your light bulbs. What`s to stop nuclear getting more efficient? If it didn`t, it would be the only thing that ever had.

cootambear

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

ginnyknit they have a few diff solar panels... etc. you would have to see which would be the best one for you, but we bought this one.. its now £7.99

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=228624

it tops up the battery in the caravan...

I don`t know if this has been posted before but there is a scheme where you can get solar power installed in your house for free. What`s the catch you say? Well, you have to pay a higher price for the electricity you use from the grid. So its calculator time.

rms1

Funny to see this thread. They showed the very first episode of the Good Life on Gold yesterday, I couldn't believe it was over 30 years ago.

Lotus-eater

cootambear wrote: »

Such wind farms could become a blight on our landscape if we go too far

Annnnd that's where I can't be bothered to read the rest in detail.

Lets think......... wind farms, or nuclear power station on our doorstep (cos it has to go on someones) Ummmm.

Having spent alot of time abroad, where there are many more wind turbines than here, the locals look upon them as a source of pride, I like the look of them, they are peaceful and graceful.

mardatha

I've got windfarms all round me, I think they're awesome ! I like to watch them.:D but then, I dont like telly !

VinceNoir

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Annnnd that's where I can't be bothered to read the rest in detail.

Lets think......... wind farms, or nuclear power station on our doorstep (cos it has to go on someones) Ummmm.

Having spent alot of time abroad, where there are many more wind turbines than here, the locals look upon them as a source of pride, I like the look of them, they are peaceful and graceful.

The problem is it takes thousands and thousands of wind turbines to produce the output of a decent nuclear power plant or coal fired power station.

The only reason wind energy is profitable is because of the massive subsidies given to energy companies by our governments, costing tax payers and the economy a massive amount. There is no way it can contribute more than a fraction of our power needs.

mardatha

I dont like nuclear power. Not at all.

rhiwfield

VinceNoir wrote: »

The problem is it takes thousands and thousands of wind turbines to produce the output of a decent nuclear power plant or coal fired power station.

The only reason wind energy is profitable is because of the massive subsidies given to energy companies by our governments, costing tax payers and the economy a massive amount. There is no way it can contribute more than a fraction of our power needs.

DECC produce a projection of electricity generation by source assuming the policies in the low carbon transition plan:

LINK, then annex e.

By 2025 under the high fossil fuel price scenario renewables produce 124 out of 390 terawatts. Certainly a fraction, but quite a large one