Whats that coming over the hill is it a monster

[gordonjcp]

As far as I am aware wind turbines have a life expectancy of 30 odd years and can be removed. Nuclear power stations will still be costing money to look after hundreds of years after they have stopped providing power and the cost of the electricity doesn't include the decommissioning cost. Uranium is also a finite resource. I would take wind/wave any day.

The problem with wind turbines is that they *can't* really be removed, unless you've got an economical way of disposing of a thousand-tonne concrete block. I suppose you could dump it in Cumbernauld, they wouldn't notice...

You've got reactor configurations such as fast breeder reactors that can burn spent uranium fuel and convert it to plutonium, which (once you have enough of it) you can modify your reactor to run on. In practical terms what you would do is actually have two reactors, one set up each way, and a stockpile of spare fuel. You could get a couple of hundred megawatts from a site the size of the existing Longannet power station.

Then of course you've got pebble bed reactors - they don't really require any special safety systems to prevent them running away, because the reaction slows as they heat up. The working fluid for the reactor is nitrogen, which doesn't really become radioactive with use (unlike water or sodium, used in existing plants). A Dutch company have demonstrated a prototype 8MW power plant that will eventually fit into an artic trailer...

[Apollo]

Well, there's a HUGE surprise and revelation on the Beeb's TV news tonight:

Windpower isn't cutting it, and is failing to generate the level power claimed by those who insisted on cramming windfarms wherever they could. English sites are making 24% of capacity, and Scotland barely manages 31% at best. Land based farms are the worst, and it seems the only worthwhile ones are/will be located offshore.

The wind just isn't there to keep them turning to the extent the developers claimed.

The cynical might be tempted to say that the massive proliferation and promotion of wind power and wind farms to date has had more to do with the developers chasing all the extremely generous and lucrative grants and subsidies that were made available to them for just building the things, rather than the realisable contribution they would ever make to the 'Green Revolution'.

As noted before, windfarms have been marching across our countryside, almost despite objections until recently, as communities have begin to say "No, you haven't justified your case". Previously, communities have been divided by their arrival, now it looks like money, rather than being environmentally sound, was the real motivator.

Same old story - £££ talks.

[Josef]

Well, there's a HUGE surprise and revelation on the Beeb's TV news tonight:

Windpower isn't cutting it, and is failing to generate the level power claimed by those who insisted on cramming windfarms wherever they could. English sites are making 24% of capacity, and Scotland barely manages 31% at best. Land based farms are the worst, and it seems the only worthwhile ones are/will be located offshore.

The wind just isn't there to keep them turning to the extent the developers claimed.

The cynical might be tempted to say that the massive proliferation and promotion of wind power and wind farms to date has had more to do with the developers chasing all the extremely generous and lucrative grants and subsidies that were made available to them for just building the things, rather than the realisable contribution they would ever make to the 'Green Revolution'.

As noted before, windfarms have been marching across our countryside, almost despite objections until recently, as communities have begin to say "No, you haven't justified your case". Previously, communities have been divided by their arrival, now it looks like money, rather than being environmentally sound, was the real motivator.

Same old story - £££ talks.

Whilst I haven't believed a word the British equivalent of Pravda says without independent corroboration for many years , I am quite prepared to believe the percentages quoted above.

The cynical would doubtless be correct in this case. However, they would also be correct in saying that that the "extremely generous and lucrative grants and subsidies that were made available to them for just building the things, rather than the realisable contribution they would ever make to the 'Green Revolution'" in the case of nuclear power plants have delivered rather less than the 'virtually free' electricity promised in its nascent stage. And that's rather less than 31%.

When, precisely, was "communities have been divided by their arrival, now it looks like money, rather than being environmentally sound, was the real motivator" not true?

And what, precisely, are the alternatives? Russian gas? Ask the Ukraine about the reliability of that. Uranium? Finite supply (maybe forty years at current use), chased by an increasing number of customers. Oil? As they say, "you're havin' a larf".

Constructive criticism, please?

[Vladimir]

British equivalent of Pravda

Is that not called 'The Sun' or even 'The Record'...

And what, precisely, are the alternatives?

Coal. We have loads of coal, as I have said before. Its not that difficult to cut power station emissions to a very low level.