http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rence.html
Just when you think you know where you are.... I am confused now, I thought the way forward was to be LESS reliant on fossil fuels?
Thoughts anyone?
Coal
- weatherwax
- Tom Good
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:26 pm
Coal
Geography is just physics slowed down, with a couple of trees stuck in it.
My New website www.dreadpirate.co.uk in it's temporary place, with link to new blog
My New website www.dreadpirate.co.uk in it's temporary place, with link to new blog
-
- Barbara Good
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:32 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Coal
Yep, fossil fuels are just that - fossils. They belong in the past!
This is Greenpeace's page on coal:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/clima ... -coal-rush
This is Greenpeace's page on coal:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/clima ... -coal-rush
Re: Coal
Well, when you couple it with the latest government attempts to allow trading of carbon-reduction measures to third-world countries, you can see that it's yet another "temporary" effort to allow Britain to carry on polluting willy-nilly. And, to be fair, until the majority of people and businesses in this country really do want to do something about the environment rather than paying lip-service to the idea, there will always be "temporary" measures.
Transferring to renewable resources necessitates an all-round and substantial reduction in power consumption. We therefore have to either agree to that (and its consequent fall-off in what is normally thought of as an acceptable standard of living) or agree to back it all up with nuclear power. That, statistically, is the cleanest and safest alternative (no, I'm not stating we should go nuclear).
Really, then, it's a "devil you know" thing.
Transferring to renewable resources necessitates an all-round and substantial reduction in power consumption. We therefore have to either agree to that (and its consequent fall-off in what is normally thought of as an acceptable standard of living) or agree to back it all up with nuclear power. That, statistically, is the cleanest and safest alternative (no, I'm not stating we should go nuclear).
Really, then, it's a "devil you know" thing.
The secret of life is to aim below the head (With thanks to MMM)
- The Riff-Raff Element
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:27 pm
- Location: South Vendée, France
- Contact:
Re: Coal
And of course the huge advantage that coal has over nuclear is that a big new coal power station will be cheap: £1 billion for an 800MW station against, what, £3 billion for a similar powered nuclear setup.
I notice that some of the old oil fired plants (Littlebrook, Fawley) are being dusted off with a view to more regular operation. How nice for the neighbours! And boy will that power be expensive.
The bit I like in the DM piece is:
"Mr Hutton believes fossil fuels are vital as they respond quickly to peaks in demand, unlike nuclear"
In the power game I believe statements like this are known as complete bollocks.
I notice that some of the old oil fired plants (Littlebrook, Fawley) are being dusted off with a view to more regular operation. How nice for the neighbours! And boy will that power be expensive.
The bit I like in the DM piece is:
"Mr Hutton believes fossil fuels are vital as they respond quickly to peaks in demand, unlike nuclear"
In the power game I believe statements like this are known as complete bollocks.

-
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:24 pm
- Location: Surrey
Re: Coal
no govt wants to be the one who enacts those policies that will result in the lights going out. Whilst the majority of people in this country are like our neighbours (every light in the house burns all through the evening, heating on as long ago as two weeks, always popping out in the car for a takeaway) then nothing will change.
Hypocrite slayer for hire. So many hypocrites, so little time.