I had initially prepared an in depth critique of Unionist’s post but I’ve missed the moment. All I would say is I think it is
you who have missed the point and I think you are unduly sensitive. Some of the things I’ve been called by many of the posters in this particular thread are a quantum leap in insult terms to your problem but actually I’ve viewed them to be absurdly funny. The old adages apply – if you stick your head above the parapet, expect it to get shot at - or – if you can’t stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen.
When I made the statement earlier
Quote:
|
“ Why can’t we do this in the uk”
|
I was really referring/hoping for some positive action from the government to promote alternative technologies rather than some exceedingly suspicious and ineffective tax rises.
I do understand many of the scale and other limitations of alternative energy technologies when suggested in a UK context. To my certain knowledge, a barrage across the Severn estuary, near where I used to live has been ‘revived’ periodically for 20 odd years. Ironically, an hour ago on local TV, trials of a pilot generator in the Mersey have been announced.
But I’ve never ever accepted that alternative technologies could provide even more than a fraction of the UK’s power requirements. Furthermore, since the UK has little spare land, there’s no hope of us converting to bio-fuels in a big way. Since also we have negligible geothermal sites, (okay some spa towns like Bath, Kidderminster ?, Harrogate ? Buxton? may be able to have some limited local schemes) that’s inadequate nationally. Furthermore, hopes of the wind blowing us out of trouble appear to have been dashed just a few days ago :- see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nwind09.xml
Quote:
|
The study says the turbine at GlaxoSmithKline's pharmaceutical plant at Barnard Castle, Co Durham, which is in a built up area and uses second-hand turbines, operates at 8•8 per cent of capacity. "We are really talking about a garden ornament, not a power station. These are statements about the company's corporate social responsibility, not efficient generating capacity," Mr Constable said.
|
So, yes, mpkdavies is right (but not a phrase I would necessarily use & twice in 2 days - I never live it down)– Well they (Germany) will be f****d then.
I suspected that in Sweden they would be promoting hydroelectric power and non-fossil carbon combustion ( they have a lot of trees in Sweden!!). I googled ‘oil free Sweden’ and came up with this ( sorry it’s the enemy rag for you GW doubters), but it is interesting, if a little optimistic. Another critical factor is, from the article that Sweden’s population is only 9 million which to me makes a big difference.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html
So my conclusions for the UK, (& accepting that it is bad to continue burning fossil fuels is that nuclear is the only option). We can’t rely on ‘fusion’ technology, either hot or cold, because they’ve been dubbed 50 year technologies – they’ve always been 50 years away from practicality.
Do you know of any other practical schemes Besoeker?