Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

Some interesting observations.

The people of Britain are NOW having to pay for not having invested in new power stations (nuclear of course) through years of ducking the issue.

Worse unlike the sensible European brethren countries we sold our family silver off (and everyone was a Sid etc and loved it) with nary a thought for the long term or who owns it. I believe we even recently courted the Saudis (of all people) to fund building new power stations.

When energy prices were being put in Spain it had to be approved by government. Not so in the UK. In any case it would be hard to tell a French or German company not to charge you more. Economically I belive that in these hard times and they are hard times that the government should cap energy prices. So the Foreign owned companies can Milk the UK to make up the capped shortfall in their home country. put simply you are subsidising Johnny Foreigner.

As far as green power is concerned, that has to be a good thing if sensibly implemented. As Lizzie says, living in the era of coke and coal wasn't nice. You would have thought that an island nation that endures many grey days would have turned to wave power by now. Just where are our modern day Brunels? We could have been a world leader

[Banjax]

I can't agree with you on this one Liz, it's not like buying cars and dishwashers...........energy is too closely tied to defence and national security for it ever to be wise to be too reliant on anyone.

Look what happens when Russia gets annoyed with any of its former republics - off goes the oil until they beg for it to be turned on - like the school bully holding a kids head in the toilet its a damocles sword dangling over our heads, i dont care if its not the cheapest option - subsidise it, nationalise it but nuclear power is necessary and no one can tell me we don't have the wherewithal to design and build our own 

[Kevin Wood]

I can't agree with you on this one Liz, it's not like buying cars and dishwashers...........energy is too closely tied to defence and national security for it ever to be wise to be too reliant on anyone.

Look what happens when Russia gets annoyed with any of its former republics - off goes the oil until they beg for it to be turned on - like the school bully holding a kids head in the toilet its a damocles sword dangling over our heads, i dont care if its not the cheapest option - subsidise it, nationalise it but nuclear power is necessary and no one can tell me we don't have the wherewithal to design and build our own 

Agreed. I suppose the only consolation is that it's difficult to take away a nuclear power station. Then again. I wonder where we'll get the fuel for those?

Kevin

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I can't agree with you on this one Liz, it's not like buying cars and dishwashers...........energy is too closely tied to defence and national security for it ever to be wise to be too reliant on anyone.

Look what happens when Russia gets annoyed with any of its former republics - off goes the oil until they beg for it to be turned on - like the school bully holding a kids head in the toilet its a damocles sword dangling over our heads, i dont care if its not the cheapest option - subsidise it, nationalise it but nuclear power is necessary and no one can tell me we don't have the wherewithal to design and build our own 

Agreed. I suppose the only consolation is that it's difficult to take away a nuclear power station. Then again. I wonder where we'll get the fuel for those?

Kevin

Exactly, so does it matter who builds them.  We can always nationalise them later.

As for the Russian gas, we are now relying less on the pan-European pipe line, with more  coming in by huge gas tanker ships.  The Russians want the cash from the gas they do sell to us, and if things get nasty we have still many billions of tons of coal that in an emergency we could utilise again. 

Fuel supplies will of course be ever more at risk in a world desperate for them.  But water is actually going to be the first reason for an internation crisis, not coal, oil or gas.  There is still so much of all that all around the world to be bought and sold to keep countries solvant.   National security has always been a factor in our supplies, so nothing has changed there, and it just gives us another good reason for keeping close up and personal with the USA - along with keeping a modern Royal Navy with a strong nuclear, as well as conventional, punch.

[Banjax]

I think it'll be a race between water, oil and food - Mad Max vs Waterworld 

[albitz]

Its the tree huggers lunacy of trying to build millions of windmills to avoid the reality that we need lots of nuclear power stations. Its rather madness, but what else can we expect from a country which allowed an unelected mentally unhinged cretin to become PM and then not utter a murmur when he sells our nuclear industry to a french company which just happens to employ his brother.

[Nickbat]

From Matt Ridley (Times) via Delingpole:


For a glimpse of a truly scary future dependent on volatile suppliers look no farther than Mr Huhne’s favoured approach, the dash for wind. Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up to spoil my view in Northumberland. The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. This year it flexed its trade muscles and briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines. How’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply?

 

[aaronjb]

Surely we simply aren't a big enough land-mass (unlike the Americas, Europe, Russia and Asia) to be self reliant? Whether it's gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind or sea power we don't have the gas rigs, coal, uranium, silicon or neodymium mines to produce the necessary materials..

(I'm just guessing that the wave based sea power generators probably also use neodymium magnets, since they're some of the most powerful available it stands to reason when you want to extract the most power out of something)

[Dishevelled Den]

Exactly, so does it matter who builds them.  We can always nationalise them later.

As for the Russian gas, we are now relying less on the pan-European pipe line, with more  coming in by huge gas tanker ships.  The Russians want the cash from the gas they do sell to us, and if things get nasty we have still many billions of tons of coal that in an emergency we could utilise again. 

Fuel supplies will of course be ever more at risk in a world desperate for them.  But water is actually going to be the first reason for an internation crisis, not coal, oil or gas.  There is still so much of all that all around the world to be bought and sold to keep countries solvant.   National security has always been a factor in our supplies, so nothing has changed there, and it just gives us another good reason for keeping close up and personal with the USA - along with keeping a modern Royal Navy with a strong nuclear, as well as conventional, punch.

Insofar as the nationalisation (after the fact) of this critical infrastructure is concerned Lizzie we should have no need to do this - we should have it under our control already and also have a policy of development that suits this nation well underway.

The problem with gas supply to here is the lack of storage.  I believe this to be a critical oversight that makes us vulnerable to fluctuating prices through having to buy at disadvantageous times.

I also believe that some energy providers are using this very thing as the reason for the recent hikes on energy cost to the consumer.

We should also be re-commissioning these mines now it's madness to allow then to fall into disrepair; coal is a precious national resource that we shouldn't ignore because others wish us to.

If we can't keep our people warm and the wheels of commerce turning without crippling energy costs the possible lack of water will be of little consequence in my view.

In terms of international energy security and the possible benefit of maintaining close links with the United States, I don't believe this will be worth depending on to the exclusion of a strong national energy policy.

The world demographic in terms of financial and strategic power is changing and I think the United States will have severe problems to work through, so much so that it will ultimately diminish their influence on the world stage. Not that there way a two way relationship with them in the first place.

Weapons of war will be useless in trying to maintain the continued availability of energy from international sources as such energy would have to be transported over distance to this country and no amount of military power will ever be able to guarantee this.

Our government should be developing an energy policy for the good of our people not others scattered around the world.

[Shackeng]

I'm glad I've got my PV panels. At least it will offset the cost of my bills.

[Varche]

Surely we simply aren't a big enough land-mass (unlike the Americas, Europe, Russia and Asia) to be self reliant? Whether it's gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind or sea power we don't have the gas rigs, coal, uranium, silicon or neodymium mines to produce the necessary materials..

(I'm just guessing that the wave based sea power generators probably also use neodymium magnets, since they're some of the most powerful available it stands to reason when you want to extract the most power out of something)

My point was that we have a huge coastline. If in every harbour we had a device that harnessed the EVERY day without fail rise and fall in tides we would be laughing. We couldn't sell the technology to the Swiss or the Austrians but plenty of other folk would buy it. Powers that be Too narrow minded I am afraid. I would have had the Severn Estuary utilised by now. plenty of other habitats and so on for wild life. they have wings and fins..................

[aaronjb]

Surely we simply aren't a big enough land-mass (unlike the Americas, Europe, Russia and Asia) to be self reliant? Whether it's gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind or sea power we don't have the gas rigs, coal, uranium, silicon or neodymium mines to produce the necessary materials..

(I'm just guessing that the wave based sea power generators probably also use neodymium magnets, since they're some of the most powerful available it stands to reason when you want to extract the most power out of something)

My point was that we have a huge coastline. If in every harbour we had a device that harnessed the EVERY day without fail rise and fall in tides we would be laughing. We couldn't sell the technology to the Swiss or the Austrians but plenty of other folk would buy it. Powers that be Too narrow minded I am afraid. I would have had the Severn Estuary utilised by now. plenty of other habitats and so on for wild life. they have wings and fins..................

True enough - but as someone mentioned above, we'd almost certainly still be at the mercy of X foreign power for the raw materials to build the generators.. granted their influence ends (or at least vastly diminishes) once they're installed and just being maintained.

[Dishevelled Den]

My point was that we have a huge coastline. If in every harbour we had a device that harnessed the EVERY day without fail rise and fall in tides we would be laughing. We couldn't sell the technology to the Swiss or the Austrians but plenty of other folk would buy it. Powers that be Too narrow minded I am afraid. I would have had the Severn Estuary utilised by now. plenty of other habitats and so on for wild life. they have wings and fins..................

Wave technology is proving very difficult to develop V although it would be incredebily useful around our coastline without doubt.

One system tested in the narrows of a loch outlet near here was found to be very difficult to place in the fast flowing current.  It used the bladed propeller system of energy transfer which was also found to be prone to damage from debris inducing imbalance leading to bearing failure. (Much the same as used in the Hudson River installation at New York)

The develpoment of this realistic alternative system has been allowed to limp along in favour of wind power as that method has grabbed the headlines as being the fashionable standard bearer for alternative energy generation.

Not that the relative lack of expense where wind was concerned (when compred to that of wave power) had anything to do with it.

[Ken T]

We could have had an alternative energy generation system for the last 20years. Profeesor Salter invented a system for extracting energy from wave motion way back in 1974. It looked good, extracting some 80% of the energy, plus the water behind it was flat, with no energy save the tidal rise and fall. Anyone want to stop coastal erosion ?.

However, somehow the Atomic energy boys got control of the patents, and figures presented to the House of Commons showing the costs of implementation got "massaged" to show that it was very expensive, when in reality.........


Ken

[Ken T]

Oh and France has had a tidal power system operational since 1966. What, the french better engineers than us ?

Ken