observer Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 On that basis Kije - "why do anything"? With asteroids, super-volcanos, earthquake generated tsunamis and of course a shift in the warming N/Atlantic current due to Polar ice melt - we could all put our heads between our legs and kiss our a**s goodbye! The point of esturary barriers, is to counter tidal surges, which with much of London having been built in the flood plain, is the reason for the Thames barrier. But; aside from preventative action, like NOT building in flood plains and moving settlement to higher elevations: we should be looking at two (or three or more) benefits for our capital investment. EG: Esturary barriers - 1) labour intensive employment. 2) harnessing tidal energy. 3) provision of estury road crossings. As for the technology: British Companies are amongst the leaders in developing "green", water based tidal, wave and current energy generation; knowledge and expertise we can export and start earning that essential foreign currency to start balancing our books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 They are investing in wind power Obs, and it is getting better, but it has not stopped you moaning about it. So when it comes to pleasing you they are stuck between a rock and a hard place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I would have thought Obs would have been in favour of wind power judging by all the hot air he emits!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 No Baz, that's balloon technology! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 No they don't, the "Greenies" say it's dirty because of the mining of raw materials, storage of waste and high risk nature of its production. Costs are a different issue altogether, which you are completely ignoring: do you have any idea of how much public money has been spent on research, development, maintenance and production of nuclear energy? And of course the windmills just grow on the completely natural "windmill trees", in the same forest as the "magic money trees" where politicians get their money from. The production of these monstosities cause more damage from mining the rare earths necessary for the generators, and the production of the concrete used in their building. And if all this public money has been spent on research and development of nuclear power (which is a viable source of clean and reliable electricity) why throw it all away and spend vast amounts on windmills which are not a viable source of reliable electricity? We are being led up the garden path by these ecoloons who won't be happy until we're all living in caves eating roots and berries :evil: (They won't be though, because ecoloonery doesn't apply to them, only the plebs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 with the current overcrowding of prison and the light sentences given out by the judiciary maybe if we make community service consist of pedal cycles connected to generators and all the convicted made to do three hours on two off and then three on again generating electric. will tick three boxes. 1) really clean energy and renewable 2) will give out some meaningful punishment 3) might even deter some from re-offending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 4) will keep them fit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 The only power source capable of meeting our expanding energy needs at the moment is nuclear, wind power will never come close, we do not have enough suitable sites for wave energy as you need a great tilde flow such as the Severn eatery. And we are now dependent on other countries for coal and people will not be willing to pay for the cost of restarting our own coal fields, as we shut them and allowed them to flood instead of moth balling them. Like it or not we have no choice but go down the nuclear route, I just wish the government would be more honest about it get off the fence and tell people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 The west coast of Scotland has one of the world's stongest currents - ideal for under water turbine generators. Any tidal flow will have sufficient power to move a generator fan, so ideal for all esturies. Despite the hose pipe ban, we still get rained on sufficiently to create more resevoirs and hydro-electric generation and store water at the same time. As for our thousand years of coal: it's not necessary to re-open the pits; several sites are already quarrying coal by surface extraction. As for nuclear - the commisioning and de-commissioning costs are astronomical; and they still havn't solved the problem of where to safely store a thousand years worth of radio active contamination. However, the Gov claim to be pursuing all options (not putting all their eggs in one basket), which seems wise; and I agree - they need to be getting on with it asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 aspers: re #30. Steady on fella, I did say earlier that any energy production necessarily implies some level of, er, dirt, to a greater or lesser degree: can we at least agree on that? I don't particularly resent public money being spent on nuclear power, though I do resent private energy companies making a profit from publicy funded subsidies. I'm just weird that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 There are very few sites, in thre Uk, for wave power, Obs, As power stations have to be near population centres, electricity does not travel well, alot of energy is lost in the grid just moving it to where we need it., The west coast of Scotland does not have the population to warrant the investment, and as I said electricity does not travel well, that's why you find power stations near the population centres. Power transmutation is not very efficient. As for hydro, the same applies, not many places near population to put it, and transmittion problems. As I said before coal would be very expensive as we do not mine enough coal for our needs, We would have to re open old coal mines which we shut, The coal mined would be very expensive due to the costs of re opening old flooded fields, it would be cheaper to import it, carbon capture is good but not good enough if the UK was to go completely back to coal. The only way at the moment is nuclear, as it is the only source that can deliver are energy need entirlely. at a cost we could bare. Have we not had this conversation before, nothing has changed sinse you failed last time, with coal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 That's your opinion: the opinion of experts in these technologies appears to differ, hence current programmes for pursuing a range of alternatives. As I said, nuclear will cost an arm and a leg and pass on a waste disposal issue for our g/kids to sort out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Why not put the nuclear waste in the abandoned coal mines. fills in the old pits and gets rid of the nuclear waste. carbon being a good way of dampening nuclear reactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Think they've considered all such options; think the last one was the old Cheshire salt mines - but I don't think anyone can guarantee against earth movements over the next thousand years and leaks into the water table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Not opinion Obs fact, energy does not travel down the grid very well, wave power, or hydro is not coming to any where near you soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 What are you talking about Kije? We're a tiny Island compared to many that successfully supply their grids from hydro schemes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 By the time you have resolved this problem we will be back in the dark ages! Have you got a light boy? Have you got a light? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Care to name some Obs,??, and will you also name the rivers which you would dam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Paraguay produces all of its electricity from hydroelectric dams and Norway about 98%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Something to do with the topography in those countries? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 No, it's to do with the hills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Population of Norway 4,691,849 (July 2011 est.) Population of Paraguay 5,734,139 Population of UK 65,000,000 How many dams would we need Could we dam the Mersey at the Wier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 A damn good idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Population of Norway 4,691,849 (July 2011 est.) Population of Paraguay 5,734,139 Population of UK 65,000,000 How many dams would we need Population of China = 1,338,299,512 and produces 25% of its electricity via hydro electrics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 I think you will find China as the rivers systems for it, and places to dam the rivers, We do not for large scale production of energy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.