Great Western Coffee Shop

Harsh! Nuclear works, is reliable, and is safe. Thorium power looks like the next step. Roll on Hinley C and Oldbury! Wind turbines onshore generate huge opposition from anyone in the area where they are to be built, and cries of "Nimby!" from those who live elsewhere. They also generate huge amounts of subsidy for the owners of the turbines and land, and small amounts of unpredictable intermittent power that the grid has trouble using in the mix. They are the biggest lie ever told, and I can't understand why the Government backs them. The Prime Minister's father-in-law earns a tidy profit from turbines on his land, which obviously is irrelevant.

All wind farms should be axed and ripped down. They are an ineffective source of power that scars the countryside and is becoming a hazard for birds and ships.

Nuclear is the only (current) viable way forward. This is sceintific fact.

The gov need to commit to building a new generation of power stations to provide most our power needs.

Then shut all gas and coal power stations. There still is a place for hydoelectric and tidal for water supply and flood prevention. Solar panels are a waste of time in this country, besides more CO₂ is released making solar panels than is saved using them!

I live within sight of the decommissioned Oldbury nuclear power station. I have no problem whatsoever with it being redeveloped for two EPR reactors. The sooner the better.

Come on HMG - award those contracts.

If it is a scientific fact then please could you cite the reference to the peer reviewed journal that provides the justifiction for this assertion.

In my opinion (making no claims as to scientific fact) we need a diverse range of sources of power to give us flexibility in what seems to me a very uncertain future. I would agree that nuclear power should be a part of this as well as renewable sources such as wind, hydro and tidal power. Opponents of wind power suggest that it can only form a very small percentage of our supply because the wind does not always blow.  However they underestimate the contribution it can make suggesting it could never contribute more than 10%.  Yet Denmark already generates over 30% of its power from wind according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark).

The real reasons for their opposition seems to be that they don't like the look of them, and somthing about the noise of which I can find no justification (though I am open to more information on this).  The conservative leader of Lincolnshire County Council recently suggested some criteria that would have excluded them from anywhere in Lincolnshire.  If such provisions were brought in then I would suggest that they should find a site for a nuclear power station in the county or vote to cut themselves off from the national grid!

It is scientific fact due to elimination! I'm sorry, if you believe otherwise, I don't know what planet you're on.

Wind - we simply cannot rely on it. If it is too windy or not windy enough it is useless. Why bother? We'd have to cover vast swathes of the Country and shoreline - even then we're at the mersey of the weather - no thanks!

Solar - as above

Non renewables - carbon dioxide emmisions = no

Geothermal - not in the UK

HEP - ok, but you'd have to flood more valleys = lost homes, habitats etc. So no more than currently please.

Tidial - ok, but linited places. Also affects habitats.

So on the process of elimination, we are left with:

Nuclear - renewable, safe, no more expensive than the opposite. Could have 80% of our needs by just building more stations - that would affect little of the country.

Then I am sure you can provide me with a number of references from peer viewed journals to support this view.


Did you read my post - it seems not.  By the way the UK is one of the windiest places in Europe!


In my opinion small scale solar as a standard addition to buildings (particularly as panels are now available that are not distiguishable from slates).  It would also complement wind power as it is often sunny when there is no wind.


I agree this should not be even a medium term option.  However it may be a short term necessity to stop the lights going out. Especially as other forms listed above are so difficult to get through planning because of the NIMBYs who seem to believe we do not need to do anything.


Surprisingly it would be viable in a number of parts of the UK. Some work is going on.


Oh if you are thinking of conventional large reservoirs - then I gree with you that there is not much potential.  However, there is much interest in small scale HEP untilising some of the sites of the many watermills that once dotted our country seemingly without becoming a blot on the landscape or flooding valleys. 


Habitats are an issue. On the one hand those habitats will be treatened by sea level rise if we do nothing. On the other there is starting to be some interest iin developing sea bed turbines that would not need a barrage and could potentially be cheaper and have less impact on habitats.

You also forgot:
 
    Wave power, which could make a significant contribution. 
    Energy from waste - which could cotribute to district heating. 
    Heat pumps to reduce energy needed to heat buildings.


Well yes this has a part to play as well. If the power stations are properly designed with due consideration to the risks. We need to ensure that we do not contaminate the coast and sea bed like we have at Dounreay and Windscale.  We also need to remeber that discharging hot cooling water even if it is not chemically or radialogically polluted still has an impact on habitats.  Use of the cooling water in district heating schemes would be one way, but we would have to put the stations neaer to where people live.  Also think where in the world the reserves of Uranium are. 

In summary there is not a black and white answer.  We need a diverse set of sources. As with so many things it is grey.

What about carbon capture technology? Still in its early days, but the technology is likely to get there in the next 10 years given sufficient investment. (Just one thing you forgot in your process of elimination to justify "scientific fact".)  

And CC is probably a lot cheaper than the billions being spent on offshore windfarms that have a habit of delivering zero power during winter cold snaps as the high pressure causing the cold weather also means no wind.

And whilst I'm generally pro-nuclear, I'm not sure that your statement that they are no more expensive than the opposite (sic) is true - after all do we really know the long term decommissioning costs?

By the way, why is Liverpool's weather of relevance?

Here's an interesting one. On-shore wind farms can benefit agriculture. Fact. Scientific and peer reviewed.

http://www.ameslab.gov/news/news-releases/wind-turbines

My own view is that which I apply to all my personal decisions and that "Do not put all your eggs in one basket". Whether it is infra-structure investment or cash investment, this applies equally.
However the recent blogs seem to be getting away from the question "Will HS2 get Axed?"

Agreed. The posts involved have been hived off and a put into this new thread.

The total number of power stations decommissioned by Denmark because of their building of thousands of wind turbines is.... (drum roll)...... zero. Denmark has the highest-priced electricity in Europe - not a scientific fact, but a financial one. See this  website (http://www.sust-it.net/europe_energy_costs.php) for details. Others are available, they all say the same thing. Denmark has a network of combined heat and power stations, which have served it well. The windfarms produce power with great variability, so the CHPs have to be fired up and ready for when the wind drops. When the windfarms produce too much power, Denmark give their excess free to Norway and Sweden. When the wind falls, they buy it back at a price. In Britain, we pay the wind companies to switch the machines off when they produce too much. Norway is powered almost entirely (99%) by hydro plants, which can be switched on and off almost instantly. Sweden is a 50/50 mix of hydro and nuclear. Both have a very small wind sector.

The  Atlantic Array  (http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/354740/rwe-innogy/sites/wind-offshore/developing-sites/atlantic-array-offshore-wind-farm/the-proposal/)will, if it is ever built, wreck the fishing grounds. Additionally, visitors to Lundy, Ilfracombe, the Gower peninsula and other lovely places will have to watch electricity being generated instead of the peaceful seascape they currently enjoy. Even if it works as well as RWE nPower say, and no windfarm has ever come close to matching the claims of the promoters, it will generate less than Hinkley C. That will spoil the (already spoiled) view for a lot fewer people.

Starting a nuclear plant from cold takes several weeks. Starting a coal-fired plant takes several days. Gas-powered plants, like Seabank in Avonmouth, react quickly to demand. Wind power cannot be regulated or demanded. Our ideal, carbon-lite mix would see nuclear providing the "base load" - what we need when everyone is in bed. Nuclear is at its most efficient when it is switched on 24 hours every day. Bio methane powered plants would take up the next tranche, with natural gas for the rest. Whilst I do not like to agree with Btline, wind power should be consigned to the recycling box of history, now. That one by the M4, the only one Londoners ever really see, produced ^100,000 electricity and ^140,000 in subsidies last year, according to the Torygraph. Because of the time lag, conventional power stations with an equivalent power to that produced by wind have to be on standby, so that the man in the national grid whose job is to watch TV, and add in units when needed because Eastenders has finished, can simply push a button. I don't know why, but the frequency of 50 Hz is the thing that matters most, and he reacts to that. This means we have coal-fired stations running on standby, or "spinning reserve" to use the jargon, using almost as much coal and producing nearly as much CO2 as they would if they were producing electric. It isn't like cycling to work, it's more like cycling to work, but having someone follow you in the car in case you get tired.

The billions we are spending on wind lunacy would be better spent on things like LED light bulbs. I swapped my 50W spotlights for 4W LEDs, and cut my electricity use for lighting my kitchen from 400W to 32W. Magnetic induction hobs would also cut consumption on a significant scale. The big problem with wind is that it provides power companies with an incentive to sell us power that does not have a vast running cost once built, with a guaranteed return over 25 years. The big windmills are noisy. I gave evidence at a public inquiry into a wind farm, the first time in my 56 years that I have ever objected to a planning proposal. This is for 9 300 ft turbines between Exmoor, which I love, and Dartmoor, which I really like, and somewhere I would not be given permission to build a bungalow if I asked. Someone who lives close to Fullabrook windfarm also spoke, telling the inspector how he doesn't notice during the day, but at night when all is quiet, it sounds like having 22 concrete mixers running close by. On some bright sunny days, he has to close the curtains and switch the lights on because of the shadows of the blades.

There is also the matter of pollution to consider. A typical 3 MW wind turbine contains 2 tonnes of Neodymium, a rare earth metal, in the permanent magnets of the generator. Conventional power stations use copper coils.  This article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html), admittedly from the Daily Mail, so not really trustworthy, shows that we are not producing pollution-free electricity, we are exporting the pollution to countries like China, where dissent is dealt with in ways we might find harsh.

IMHO, the biggest problem we have with wind power is that it diverts resources from finding long-term solutions to the quick political fix. This is nothing new; when the Queen (God bless her) flicked the switch to turn on the supply at Calder Hall in 1956, we knew it would not last forever. We built many more plants, each with a known lifespan, yet we did not plan for the future, because our governments last for only a maximum of 5 years, and don't like to upset anybody in the last 3 of those years. Commissioning, planning, and building a nuclear plant takes longer than that. Wind farms are a quick fix, because they supply guilt-free electricity for politicians in London to make capital out of, lobbied by mainly foreign companies since we privatised our power, but are  built in far-flung places inhabited by people who don't really matter.

Thorium power could be the next game-changer. Thorium is not very radioactive, and has a short half-life. It will never go "critical", because of this. It needs a small amount of plutonium to fire it up. It is of no use to terrorists or rogue states. It is abundant, several hundreds of times more so than the uranium fuelling today's reactors. It is embarrassing, but India may be the country that cracks the puzzle, and we may be importing technology from a country we were giving aid to as recently as 2010.

Until about 1973, power was cheap in the UK. It isn't now, but we haven't adjusted to the new reality yet. In the future, our heating, cooking, and motive power will be electricity. We can never rely on wind, and it is about time the powers that be admitted this inconvenient truth.

This is a fascinating debate; not only for its own sake (I am very interested in the future energy situation) but also as it raises some interesting comparisons between the acceptability of noisy unsightly wind turbines and noisy unsightly electrified railways (particularly HS2).

I don't think wind turbines are as useless as some make out. However, I am frustrated that wind is the only renewable the government have done much pushing for. The baseload power generation, in my opinion, should be made up of mostly completly submurged tidal stream turbines (note: not barrages) and nuclear power stations, but I think wind turbines probably do have a place in the generation mix (though something needs to be done about pylons, which are much more of an eyesore than most modern wind turbines).

I believe I have read of a proposal for a fossil-fuel-powered (diesel perhaps) generation station which I think was supposed to start up and shut-down almost instantly as back up for wind farms. If true, that sort of thing would mean we would only need to burn fossil fuels when it isn't windy, rather than having to keep coal-fired stations running even when it is windy to prvide power when it isn't. Pumped-storage hydro-power might also be good company for wind generation (when you have more wind than you need pump water up, when there isn't enough wind let the water flow).

First I will say I do support renewable source generation.

Renewable's are not as "green" as they are often made out, the energy consumed in their manufacture, construction and then ultimate decommissioning and demolition per kW generated over their life is very similar to that of a fossil fuel generation plant.

On the nuclear verses fossil fuel, the levels of background radiation from a coal fired power station are higher than from a nuclear plant, there are concerns over the waste from nuclear and the legacy of burring radio active decommissioned plant people often forget the levels of toxic waste from coal burning there are quite a lot of Welsh values filled in with waste from coal mines all of this waste has toxins, the burning of coal produces some very nasty byproducts again a lot of this went to landfill; dangerous legacy for future generations who might dig it up. 

No matter how we generate electricity their is an environmental impact, today we have a far better understanding of these impacts what is missing is clear policy, there was one in the 1930's the Governments decision to build the National Grid and the decision in the 1950's to build large power stations connected to the National Grid we are lacking that vision today

Fascinating topic.

I heartily recommend the following book by David MacKay for a lucid, rational, numerate discussion of the issues surrounding UK national energy: http://withouthotair.com/ (and - yes - he does the sums and advocates widespread electrification....)

It really is brilliantly well written - extremely readable.

I agree with a lot of what is said here. That windfarm proposal off the Bristol channel is horrendous! I staying in a hotel in Broadstairs, Kent recently and I was shocked when night fell as it looked as if there was a TOWN just off the coast (when in reality it should be dark). At first I thought it must be the Netherlands. But it was a giant windfarm plonked there despite the locals not wanting their beautiful views lost.

But my opinion stays the same. Nuclear for most of our power - topped up by some HEP and tidal.

I have been reading through this thread and have decided to air my own views.

I certainly have some agreement with those arguing against wind power although I agree with having some wind farms I also agree we should be doing more to promote otehr methods of generating power i.e Nuclear.

I  am  also in favour of building the Severn Barage (especially since it is a big infrastructure project that would create jobs when it is being built , something the country could do with)

There is much debate on this and much of it has turned into a big con.    When the earth was created, coal was under the surface as a means of lighting fires and as a result the smoke had to escape into the atmosphere.     People think that too much carbon is the cause of global warming and their brainwashing powers have convinced many people.   So man  (or person in case i am criticised for being unpolitically correct) is trying to interfere with a natural process over which they have no control.    If an iceberg is going to melt or the level of the sea rises nobody is going to prevent, not even King Canute.    When steam locos, furnaces and factory chimneys belched out smoke we did not get the weather patterns we do now and we could rely on fine weather summers, unlike now as a result of people trying to interfere with what was intended to happen in the beginningand over which man has no control however we are "conned". 

Recent article shows the compelling evidence of man-made climate change http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind).  However given what you said perhaps you do not dispute this. 

If you disput this perhaps you do not care.  We could carry on regardless, but this is likely to make large parts of our planet uninhabitable and disrupt global food supplies.  Probably leading to mass starvation in some places.  If you think that is OK because it will be OK here, (is it all right for mass starvation in other countries?) don't be so sure. Even without global warming we have not been self sufficient in food since the 1850's we do not know what the local effects might be and we may not be rish enough to outbid other countries such as China.   

Yes. I have read the reports but I still think that it is beyond the power of man to change it even by trying to reduce the carbon footprint.    Is there any evidence that it is actually working.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're trying to suggest that man (which is a fine word to use, as in "mankind") is not responsible then take a look at a graph of temps. See the kink after the industrial revolution.

If you're trying to suggest that there is nothing we can now do about it, you're probably right. If I waved a magic wand and stopped all emissions today, it would take another 200 years for the CO2 levels to stop rising. In reality, we have China opening coal fired stations every week. We must prepare instead.

And please, it's not a carbon increase, it is carbon dioxide increase. The amount of carbon is staying pretty constant!

Well done Btline. A scientific fact.  :P ;) ;D

I suspect that I've uncovered your basic problem, which is that you haven't got a clue what you're on about.

Everybody can have an opinion and put forward theories.   Whether you agree or disagree it is courtesy to respect opinions however you feel.    I'm not saying I'm correct but there can be countless possibilities.

But what you wrote is factually wrong.

Coal was created over millions of years from rotting organic material on sea beds and ancient forests (hence being a carbon source). It was not "put" underground by anyone! Plus if you're going to be accurate, the Earth was not "created", it was formed from gathering dust. I'm confused about what you're trying to say...

You're right that there are countless possibilities within the range of this though.

Sorry.  My knowledge on the history of coal was geologically flawed.  I admit to being wrong.   It was still formed however.   I will rest my case and you will hear no more from me on the subject.

Agree with all you say here. however, China opening a coal power station every week was true for about a quarter of a year before the economic crash. since then Chinese coal plants are being built at a much lower rate-in fact wind, solar, hydro, gas and nuclear are all increasing at a faster rate than coal in China.

Tidal power, although much more reliable that wind, isn't constant, so probably wouldn't be any use as baseload. It is, however, suddenly very promising. The latest government scheme for renewables has not just cut wind's subsidy by 10%, but has also added incentives for wave power to be used, by upping the value of the ROC (renewable obligation certificates) per unit of power. Expect much to happen, especially off northern Scotland. These will be completely underwater, and may very well look like wind turbines. BAE Systems have done considerable work already. The advantage over wind is the density of water against air - there is a lot more energy in the same sized place.


Pumped storage, such as Dinorweg electric mountain, was conceived as good company for nuclear power stations. They work best when they are on full power permanently. At night, the chain of nuclear stations proposed would need something to use their excess power on. Charging up the nation's night storage heaters and milk floats took only some of the power, so Dinorweg was born. It uses off-peak energy to pump the water uphill, so there is loss of energy. But it can turn the dial from zero to 1.8MW in less than half a minute, and sustain that for up to six hours. Of course, not all the nuclear stations were built, so a second plant tentatively planned for Exmoor never saw the light of day. Exmoor, BTW, did have pumped storage, from 1899 until the night of the flood in 1952 - see  here (http://www.lyntonandlynmouth.com/pwrstn.html) for more.

The National Grid already relies on a number of diesel-powered generators to provide that last little bit of electricity when the conventional stuff doesn't quite add up. These tend to be owned by farmers, and make a nice little income for them, even if they are not often used. Pumped storage is a good idea in principle, but would cost sums that may make nuclear look cheap. Dinorweg cost ^425m at 1974 prices, and took 10 years to build. Someone in Scotland suggested this as a storage for wind power, and was shot down in flames by angry kilt-wearers, who said it would ruin what little of Scotland is left unspoiled by wind turbines.

Promising for the future is Thorium. It offers most of the benefits of traditional nuclear, with hardly any of the disadvantages. There are thousands of years of supply. It consumes 98% of input fuel, as opposed to 5% for uranium, leaving a few gallons of waste instead of a few truckloads. India is ahead of the field on this possible fuel, and hopes to start its first Thorium reactor later this year. Even Friends of the Earth are moving towards support. Bit ironic that a country we are still giving aid to could be the one to leave us behind.