Jump to content

£18 billion seems a bargain to me....


Davy51
 Share

Recommended Posts

...for pretty clean energy security for 60 years. I know that may be just a starting figure but it is not before time for the government to grasp the nettle & commit to the partnership with China & EDF. The world's viable energy supplies of fossil fuels won't last for ever .

 

I can't help feeling that compared to the £50 billion + for HS2 that this is money well spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't suppose it will bovver us Dave; as it will be your kids, g/kids and gt/g/kids that will be paying for it in inflated energy prices !   Nuclear is the most expensive energy option (commissioning & de-commissioning costs) and problematic in terms of waste. The added factor in this instance, is a reliance on a foreign (potential enemy) country for energy, and with a system that has now been ruled out by Japan and Germany. Neither will it close the future energy gap, caused by the closure of old coal and gas power stations. So perhaps we should keep the old power stations a while longer and concentrate on some major estuary tidal schemes (which may assist in countering emerging flooding problems)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

concentrate on some major estuary tidal schemes (which may assist in countering emerging flooding problems)?

How? Pray enlighten us ignoramuses oh scientific genius :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By finding the funds, either through taxation or borrowing, to fund these infrastructure schemes, such as the Severn Barrier for example.  Corbyn is telling us he'll be spending £500billion on infrastructure provision, so with all the foreign labour he'll still be allowing in, such schemes should be a doddle !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Thames Barrier wasn't put there to produce electricity, it was to prevent flooding upriver during abnormal high tides. In actual fact it is used more often than not to preserve the water height in the upper reaches of the Thames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Thames Barrier wasn't put there to produce electricity, it was to prevent flooding upriver during abnormal high tides. In actual fact it is used more often than not to preserve the water height in the upper reaches of the Thames.

 

Does it have any electricity producing equipment Asp ,after all hydro electric was in the pipeline when the barrier was built ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that sort of barrier. It's only closed during excessively high tides to prevent flooding upstream, or to maintain river levels upstream during drought conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They operate as "barriers" in the infrequent event that a storm surge threatens flooding, in the case of the Thames Barrier, such flooding would effect most of the city centre. I see no reason, why they couldn't contain turbines powered by river and tidal flows, which would be sealed off during a barrier operation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know how a tidal barrier for power production is supposed to work Obs, and the Thames Barrier isn't that sort of barrier. It's in the wrong place for a start!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't claim the Thames Barrier to be a power generator Asp; merely an estuary barrier, designed to prevent flooding. I did suggest (operative word being "may") that a Severn Barrier could perform both functions, and with lots of estuaries around the UK, it would seem the ideal renewable power source for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These tidal barriers have been looked at and costed, and so far no feasible scheme has been identified. Should the economic case improve in future there may well be one or more schemes go ahead. Watch this space.

 

But they won't prevent flooding, if anything they may increase the flooding risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at least hydro and tidal are more predictable than solar or wind and if done correctly could also help improve our transport infrastructure. I think I read somewhere that although we have more coast than most countries, the tides we get here aren't exactly ideal for power generation but it makes sense to consider such methods as alternatives to high level bridges. Take for example the proposed Morcambe bay scheme, no great tidal height but a vast amount of water and a direct link for the people of Barrow. If the money spent developing the new road network could have been put into the pot for a road/barrier it'd probably made the scheme viable.

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three for the price of one then Bill; road scheme, energy scheme and flood control scheme; all in one.                                                                                                                                                                         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

convicted felons serving a sentence, exercise bikes linked to dynamo's. three hours a day per prisoner. gives them healthy exercise and serves a useful purpose.

 

Could also link up all that gym equipment that people pay a fortune for. might not generate a great deal of power but spread over a day i bet it would be enough to power the lights in the place for a few hours. would make more profit for the owners as they would have less bills to pay for the electric.

 

Or are they just impractical suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...