Author |
Topic |
|
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted -
19/01/2006
:
21:33
|
Environmental groups have today called for extensive public consultation following the Government's announcement that a major power station is to be built to the west of Barnoldswick, Lancashire, in a largely uninhabited area of moorland known as Middop*. "It is now almost universally accepted that Britain's power requirements outstrip current capacity," said a senior government source at a news conference in Westminster today. "If we are to remain a force in the world's economy we must ensure that we can meet the demand for power on both an industrial and domestic front, although it has not yet been decided in what form this power will be generated - nuclear, renewable or fossil." Environmental campaigners are demanding that the local population be consulted to gauge their opinion on the matter. A questionnaire is to be issued to each household in the area asking the following simple question: If you had a choice, which kind of power generation plant would you find least objectionable if it were situated 'in your back yard': 1. Nuclear (similar to Windscale and Sizewell)
2. Renewable (similar to wind farms at Cliviger)
3. Fossil (electricity generated by coal/gas) * Needless to say, this posting is not, thank god, actually true! I just thought I'd use a bit of literary licence to set the scene. The basic question is: Given that the UK will have to build more power stations, what solution would YOU be happy with? And given that such a plant would have to be built SOMEwhere, how would you feel if it were next to Barlick
|
|
Replies |
Author |
|
|
Ringo
Site Administrator
3793 Posts
|
|
Posted - 19/01/2006 : 22:00
If all the choices have to produce the same power output surely it comes down to a choice of two, fossil or nuclear. This is because a wind farm could never match the output of the other two.
P.S. If every home in the UK were given one more low energy light bulb, one conventional power station could be decommissioned
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 04:41
I'd go for nuclear and clean coal. I wouldn't mind living near either of them. In the gap between today and Fusion, these are the only viable options and if we don't go for them we accept rationing. Cut out all the emotive bit about alternatives and this is the reality.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Ringo
Site Administrator
3793 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 05:08
After a few hours sleep thinking about it I am leaning towards Nuclear as being the most viable option.We visited the Nuclear pwer station at Wylfa Head on Anglesea a couple of years ago and I learnt more about nuclear power in the 2 hours that we were there than in the previous 30 years.
|
Big Kev
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 08:57
quote:
Ringo wrote:
If all the choices have to produce the same power output surely it comes down to a choice of two, fossil or nuclear. This is because a wind farm could never match the output of the other two.
P.S. If every home in the UK were given one more low energy light bulb, one conventional power station could be decommissioned
If I had low energy children I could be decommissioned.
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Another
Traycle Mine Overseer
6250 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 09:14
Nuclear for me. France seems to fare well on them and we'll have no fiossil fuels left in 50 years. Nolic
" I'm a self made man who worships his creator" |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 11:11
There are technologies now to use coal that are streets ahead of just burning it. Basically you split the hydrogen out of the coal and burn that, the only waste product is water. The remainder is used for chemical feedstock.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 11:49
That's interesting, Stanley. I shall have to look into that, although coal is still a finite source and will eventually run out, getting more expensive as it nears the last seam. And let's face it, money is at the bottom of all this.I totally understand the attractions of nuclear power, especially as greenhouse gases must be eliminated if we're to leave any sort of habitable planet for future generations. What bothers me is the waste, which is around for thousands and thousands of years. We don't know what damage it could do. It's irresponsible to assume that in the future someone will come up with a way to make it harmless. And the by-products can also be made into bombs - what happens when a politically unstable country (or one which is unacceptable to the West) develops nuclear energy? Do we sit on our high horse and say: You can't have cheap/clean energy for your economy, you might blow us all up. But it's OK for us, because we're the goodies. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island... aren't these some kind of warning? We're supposed to learn from history, aren't we? Accidents happen. I wouldn't like Barlick to be another tragic statistic.
What also irritates me is the amount of money and human effort/brain power that has been poured into developing nuclear energy. If the same huge amount had been allocated to developing renewable sources, I'm sure the boffins could have come up with a workable solution. This planet has abundant supplies of free sun, water and wind, not to mention animal and vegetable waste products. Harnessing these was surely a simpler task than someone thinking up how to split an atom! I don't have any definite answers to the original posting's question. I certainly think there should be a massive push to help us reduce the amount of energy we use. Issuing every household with 3 low energy lightbulbs could be cheaper than investing in another power plant. If I have to nail my colours to the mast, seeing as I asked the question in the first place, I'd go for the wind farm, with a corresponding programme to reduce the nation's energy usage. However, I'd dearly love to hear as many other views as possible. This is an issue with many facets and it's valuable to see it from evry angle. |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 16:33
In fifty years we will be worrying about something else, fusion is on the way. No waste products, just pure energy. As for coal running out, the gas will go first, we are still sat on gazillions of tons.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Hatepe (R.I.P.)
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 21:49
Living in NZ where we are going big time into wind farms to generate power, I would think that 50 machines on the top of the Weets or where ever the wind blows strongest would supply all the needs of Barlick, Colne and Earby without polluting the atmosphere, plus in the long run it is the cheapest form of power generation.
I can hear the "do gooders" complaining immediately about the aesthetic look of wind machines on the horizon and the noise that they are supposed to make, but most of that is eyewash. In fact 50 wind machines spread across a hillside tend to give it character and here in NZ they are a tourist attraction.
No one complained about mill chimneys when they were built and there is no doubt about it they polluted the atmosphere. Nuclear power stations may be the answer, but the waste problem is such that generations after we are gone will still be saddled with the waste.
We are now building wind farms close to hydro electric schemes in NZ as back up power supplies for when the dams are low and there is no chance of rain to replenish the water needed to generate power. Good forward thinking
Remember - in this day and age you can't live without electric power. Wind farms are the next step for cheap electricity - someday we will harness the tides to give us all the power that we need (if you have a seaboard).
Aye Hatepe
R.W.King |
michaeltapper
New Member
48 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/01/2006 : 22:27
50 windmills would take up alot of hill,look at the 5 just the other side of skipton(addingham),and would look bloody awful,IMHO!!
as for the mill chimneys,yes no-one complained when they were built,but then no-one complained about slavery and sending small boys up the chimneys then either.
i think the answer lies in whatever will be the cheapest for the populas as they(us) will decide which is the best/cheapest option regardless of pollution etc. as we don't really care what we've already done to the planet!
|
Sue
|
Posted - 21/01/2006 : 10:01
Emotive responses change when the purse gets hit. Unfortunately it takes time to plan and build powerstations. We need some honest reporting that all the general public can understand. Idealism and realism do not always go hand in hand.
If you keep searching you'll find it |
Steamtractor
New Member
19 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/01/2006 : 10:18
I think that there should be no more nuclear power stations built the cost of de commisioning is to costly and it is unfair on future generations to leave them our filth to clean up.Why are all our sewage farms not fitted with digesters to produce methane gas.Wind farms being built out at sea wave power in remote places.The 4 wind mills up at Chalker res near Addingham belong the water board and produce electricity for pumping water.Why dont they sell surplus power to the national grid.A lot of electricity is being wasted lighting motorways.Basically all the goverment does is talk about it and never seems to do owt about it.ll the best Geoff
|
Ringo
Site Administrator
3793 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/01/2006 : 13:27
A proposed 'green' bridge across Morecambe Bay could produce enough energy to power 2.2 million homes, 80% of the 2.8 million homes in the north west of England, new research has claimed.
Plans for the bridge were outlined last year, by private consortium 'Bridge Across The Bay Company'. If built it would stretch from Heysham to Barrow, with tidal, wave, wind and photovoltaic systems built in to connect to the grid
Anyone heard anymore about this proposed venture?
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/01/2006 : 16:51
Sue's right and as the cost of fuel rises and is reflected in domestic and industrial charges the debate will shift to nuclear and probably clean coal as well. They will nod at wind power but no one is going to put all the eggs in that basket. So the message is if you don't like nuclear and coal, pull the plugs out.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Sue
|
Posted - 21/01/2006 : 21:13
Good one Stanley
If you keep searching you'll find it |