How it Works1 min ago
Tell The Green Lobby To Get Stuffed
Isn't it time politicians stopped listening to these weirdos and kept the present coal fired power stations in operation? It's the height idiocy to turn them off just to please our EU masters and the green idiots. Let's build some more coal fired and nuclear power stations. Also we should plough ahead with the fracking technology as they have in the USA. Time to do the sensible things to keep the lights on!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I don't think it's just the green lobby Dave. Coal is expensive and relies on external sources (who we do not have direct control over).
We're going to HAVE to rely on gas for some time anyway as the current and previous governments have been profoundly short sighted in this matter.
The beauty of using renewable is that, by their nature, they tend to be within your own jurisdiction. My personal preference is to do as much renewable energy as possible and then whack a few nuclear power plants about the place. Ideally we could be an net exporter of energy, rather than an importer.
So, really, my main suggestion is that you tell the conservation lobby to get stuff - leave the green ones alone, especially if they've got a bit of a glow on.
We're going to HAVE to rely on gas for some time anyway as the current and previous governments have been profoundly short sighted in this matter.
The beauty of using renewable is that, by their nature, they tend to be within your own jurisdiction. My personal preference is to do as much renewable energy as possible and then whack a few nuclear power plants about the place. Ideally we could be an net exporter of energy, rather than an importer.
So, really, my main suggestion is that you tell the conservation lobby to get stuff - leave the green ones alone, especially if they've got a bit of a glow on.
Guess that'll be OK then!
Why are people worried?
In America, which has been using this fracking technique for the longest time, major problems are emerging.
Exposure to fracking chemicals has been found to be extremely hazardous. In one famous case, reported on by a US Government watchdog organisation in 2008, a Colorado nurse nearly died of organ failure after being exposed to a worker who had been soaked in fracking liquids.
Even while she was on the brink of death, the company refused to divulge what chemicals she had been exposed to. She still doesn’t know.
Since 2004 nearly 1000 incidents of water pollution from fracking have been recorded where chemicals or methane have contaminated water in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico and Arizona.
Why are people worried?
In America, which has been using this fracking technique for the longest time, major problems are emerging.
Exposure to fracking chemicals has been found to be extremely hazardous. In one famous case, reported on by a US Government watchdog organisation in 2008, a Colorado nurse nearly died of organ failure after being exposed to a worker who had been soaked in fracking liquids.
Even while she was on the brink of death, the company refused to divulge what chemicals she had been exposed to. She still doesn’t know.
Since 2004 nearly 1000 incidents of water pollution from fracking have been recorded where chemicals or methane have contaminated water in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico and Arizona.
Er - I think you'll find a number of the green lobby want nuclear
Unfortunately business doesn't because they are refusing to pick up the huge unknown decomissioning costs.
Are you suggesting that we the tax payer should pay for that?
I think you'll find these decisions are a lot more complex than the seem from your 'Jeremy Clarkson' viewpoint
Unfortunately business doesn't because they are refusing to pick up the huge unknown decomissioning costs.
Are you suggesting that we the tax payer should pay for that?
I think you'll find these decisions are a lot more complex than the seem from your 'Jeremy Clarkson' viewpoint
I’d like us to have about as many as France has, fred. About 60, I believe, providing about 80% of the nation‘s requirements..
This whole energy nonsense is a farce. The UK‘s “energy gap” was first identified at least ten years ago. The last government sat on its hands. This government has done likewise. All they have done is authorised the building of a few windmills at great expense which are at best insufficient and at worst utterly useless.
Readers may also be interested to learn of an exciting development which took place (very quietly) over the past few months. One of the UK’s largest coal fired power stations, Drax in Yorkshire) has converted some of its capacity from burning coal to woodchip. Wood has an energy release factor, volume for volume, of about a tenth that of coal. Add to that the enormous cost (both financially and in terms of carbon emissions) of shipping the stuff from places as far away as Canada and the folly of this “Green” scheme is plain to see.
This whole energy nonsense is a farce. The UK‘s “energy gap” was first identified at least ten years ago. The last government sat on its hands. This government has done likewise. All they have done is authorised the building of a few windmills at great expense which are at best insufficient and at worst utterly useless.
Readers may also be interested to learn of an exciting development which took place (very quietly) over the past few months. One of the UK’s largest coal fired power stations, Drax in Yorkshire) has converted some of its capacity from burning coal to woodchip. Wood has an energy release factor, volume for volume, of about a tenth that of coal. Add to that the enormous cost (both financially and in terms of carbon emissions) of shipping the stuff from places as far away as Canada and the folly of this “Green” scheme is plain to see.
I guess the folly is plain to see if you're an over 60 Telegraph reader who thinks he knows better than the world's scientists and doesn't really give a toss what happens to the planet after he's gone anyway!
As for how 'green' nuclear is it depends what you're measuring - in terms of carbon emissions it's pretty damn good
In terms of sustainability it's pretty poor - it's also very expensive if you take into account reprocessing and decomissioning costs.
As the Ed also points out - coal puts you as much in hock to foreign suppliers as Gas does to the Russians so it doesn't help the energy security issue.
The only sensible approach is a broad basket of technologies - but we have to actually start and stop having multi-year enquiries every time a new power station or wind warm is proposed
As for how 'green' nuclear is it depends what you're measuring - in terms of carbon emissions it's pretty damn good
In terms of sustainability it's pretty poor - it's also very expensive if you take into account reprocessing and decomissioning costs.
As the Ed also points out - coal puts you as much in hock to foreign suppliers as Gas does to the Russians so it doesn't help the energy security issue.
The only sensible approach is a broad basket of technologies - but we have to actually start and stop having multi-year enquiries every time a new power station or wind warm is proposed
Yes jake, for once I absolutely concur with your last sentiment. Each of the last two administrations has seen the problem and done nothing of any note.
On some of the other points I'd be interested to learn how carting wood chippings three or four thousand miles to burn in a power station perfecly adapted to burning coal can be seen as "green", especially when ten times as much is needed to gain the equivalent quantity of energy. As for energy security, this island has about three hundred years supply of coal buried beneath it and we once has the expertise to dig it out.
By the way, my information about Drax came not from the Daily Telegraph but from that well know Right Wing organ Private Eye, with support from the Right of Centre BBC. Given the choice of possibly suffering the effects of climate change at some indeterminate time in the future (by no means certain) and almost certainly sitting in the cold and dark in two years time (almost a dead cert) I think I know what I'd choose.
On some of the other points I'd be interested to learn how carting wood chippings three or four thousand miles to burn in a power station perfecly adapted to burning coal can be seen as "green", especially when ten times as much is needed to gain the equivalent quantity of energy. As for energy security, this island has about three hundred years supply of coal buried beneath it and we once has the expertise to dig it out.
By the way, my information about Drax came not from the Daily Telegraph but from that well know Right Wing organ Private Eye, with support from the Right of Centre BBC. Given the choice of possibly suffering the effects of climate change at some indeterminate time in the future (by no means certain) and almost certainly sitting in the cold and dark in two years time (almost a dead cert) I think I know what I'd choose.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles54 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.