Windfarm debate – was Duxford airshows at risk?

CD – sorry to come back on this but I just stumbled across this from John Hutton, Minister in the last Labour Government:

“The public must be told the facts about nuclear, as well as other forms of energy. The most unpalatable truth is that no form of energy generation can be completely free of risk. And there is one chilling statistic that we should all have at the forefront of our minds when we consider the alternatives to nuclear – in China, 5,000 people die every year while mining coal for use in power stations. When it comes to energy policy, there are rarely any simple, easy choices.
Renewable sources must be part of a balanced policy, but they are intermittent and need to be engineered around a base load of dependable power generation if peaks of demand are to be met.
It is clear, therefore, that our needs cannot be met from renewable sources alone. Europe will, in any event, be extremely hard-pressed even to achieve its current renewable goals, let alone meet any increased level of output.
The most likely alternative global source of energy, if we abandoned our nuclear ambitions, would be coal or gas. However, burning more coal and gas will not help us reduce the amount of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere – in fact, quite the opposite. The human and environmental consequences of such a policy would be potentially catastrophic, which must be factored in to any call for an end to civil nuclear power.
If Britain were to turn its back on nuclear, a new “dash for gas” would be inevitable, given that it seems unlikely the Government would sanction any new coal-fired power stations in the foreseeable future. Not only would this be bad for our environment, it would increase our dependence on foreign energy supplies, making us less secure. This is a risk no sensible government should expose us to. A primary goal of energy policy must instead be to increase our energy independence. Nuclear passes this critical test.”

I just love the line where you quote, no sensible Government etc, have we ever had one of those?.if so I must have missed it.

Lincoln .7

Increase our energy independence…..where exactly is Britain’s biggest uranium mine? :confused:

CD – sorry to come back on this but I just stumbled across this from John Hutton, Minister in the last Labour Government:

“The public must be told the facts about nuclear, as well as other forms of energy. The most unpalatable truth is that no form of energy generation can be completely free of risk. And there is one chilling statistic that we should all have at the forefront of our minds when we consider the alternatives to nuclear – in China, 5,000 people die every year while mining coal for use in power stations. When it comes to energy policy, there are rarely any simple, easy choices.
Renewable sources must be part of a balanced policy, but they are intermittent and need to be engineered around a base load of dependable power generation if peaks of demand are to be met.
It is clear, therefore, that our needs cannot be met from renewable sources alone. Europe will, in any event, be extremely hard-pressed even to achieve its current renewable goals, let alone meet any increased level of output.
The most likely alternative global source of energy, if we abandoned our nuclear ambitions, would be coal or gas. However, burning more coal and gas will not help us reduce the amount of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere – in fact, quite the opposite. The human and environmental consequences of such a policy would be potentially catastrophic, which must be factored in to any call for an end to civil nuclear power.
If Britain were to turn its back on nuclear, a new “dash for gas” would be inevitable, given that it seems unlikely the Government would sanction any new coal-fired power stations in the foreseeable future. Not only would this be bad for our environment, it would increase our dependence on foreign energy supplies, making us less secure. This is a risk no sensible government should expose us to. A primary goal of energy policy must instead be to increase our energy independence. Nuclear passes this critical test.”

I can’t see that one having any legs, Linc!;) Something else will catch our attention, never fear………..:)

Errrrrrrrrr, like it was a joke Pete, you should know me better by now.:diablo:

Jim.
L.7

I can’t see that one having any legs, Linc!;) Something else will catch our attention, never fear………..:)

Blimey, what are we going to argue about now! :rolleyes:

How about, who put up the best argument on the debate.:D:D
It’s all hypothetical at this moment in time anyway.

Lincoln. 7
:diablo:

Never fear – we’ll think of something!;)

Blimey, what are we going to argue about now! :rolleyes:

Well we’ll never know, so hear endeth the lesson.;):)

I bet I could reduce Britain’s energy needs by 10% quicker and more cheaply than you could provide a 10% increase in generating capacity with nuclear power. 🙂

Ideally we have to do both in tandem, but, as I have mentioned now in several posts, we have to start the construction process NOW, unless we want to turn the lights off within the decade. We do not have the luxury of waiting for these new developments to be brought to fruition.

But why embark on a course now that will lock us into decades more of nuclear power and vast decommissioning costs, all at the mercy of (foreign owned) companies who are in it to make a profit? Why not concentrate on improving energy usage, reducing demand, and invest in some renewable energy to fill the gap for a decade or so while the emerging technologies are developed?

I’ll bet you that in twenty-five years time Japan will have a completely nuclear-free hydrogen-solar based energy economy and be free from importing oil, gas or uranium…

…while we in Britain are once again bemoaning the mistakes of the past while we struggle to pay the £500billion cost of decommissioning our outdated nuclear industry! :rolleyes:

In the long run I agree, you are right. We have been working on hydrogen cell vehicular energy for a while and there is great merit in these technologies and in what you say. The problem is time. I have no doubt that we will be producing clean energy in some, perhaps even now unkown, forms, within a generation but my concern is for the now. Hence my earlier comments.

Here is something from the BBC in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497992.stm

A British company at the forefront of hydrogen technology with an apparently workable solution to much of our need to rely on imported oil; of course I don’t suppose the government is keen because the hydrogen would be tax-free! :rolleyes:

Now, with careful house design it should be possible to reduce the energy needs of the home to a point where solar roof-tiles can provide much, if not all, of the power required for home and vehicle, possibly even a surplus. One of the main problems with electricity is that you cannot store it easily but with this technology you can convert it to easily stored hydrogen, and hydrogen fuel-cells can convert it back to electricity when needed. Large power stations would still be needed but progressively fewer of them as this technology spreads and the demand for electricity was less changeable over night and day.

Wouldn’t the billions that are to be invested in nuclear commissioning, decommissioning and waste disposal be better invested in this sort of clean, cheap and safe power?

CD – thank you for your expansive response to my post. Yes we might rue the UK’s lack of involvement in new technologies but as far as wind farms are concerned we have no choice. We have no expertise here – the Danes, Germans and others have. The government’s committments to the EU targets means that we have to buy in the technology, although it is arguable that there are simply not the resources to build what we need in the time span available. But that’s another story.

To be honerst I do not care where the technology comes from or where it goes at the end. All I know is that under current energy decisions we will not be able to generate enough electicity for our needs by 2018. We will struggle if the nuclear plans come to fruition on time. I can still see us importing some of our energy within a decade. And that is sheer irresponsibilty brought about by dithering indecision and obeissance to the great god Brussels.

The key claims made by him have even been disowned by the ICCC panel. The fact that the film was treated as “gospel” even to the point of it being required watching in every secondary school in the UK, that the man was seen as a disciple of his cause, I think, justifies the words I used. If you set yourself up that high then you deserve the fall, if you are found wanting, as he has been in his involvement with the global warming phenomenum.

To bring the protagonists of the two extreme views down by cheap jibes does nothing to advance the cause of rational debate in which the majority try to engage.

You may well be right. It is important to remain objective and to avoid personalising this serious issue that faces all of us.

Al Gore’s ludicrous claims in his ridiculous film have long been shown to be not worth the paper they were written on….

Oooops! :diablo:

Here’s why you should believe everything you read about windfarms.

What about a plane flying into a nuclear power station? But Oldbury hasn’t has it, and is extremely unlikely to do so.

These sorts of things always grab the public imagination and the reactor containment buildings are designed to withstand aircraft impact but I’m not so sure about the more vulnerable parts of the site; the parts that have failed so spectacularly at Fukushima. Anyway I believe these sorts of risks are tiny compared with built-in design flaws or the mishandling of the plant by its operators.

I do not follow the logic of your argument which seems to be based on the fact you are opposed to nuclear power. Fair enough but I think there needs to be a basis for your position other than that they are inherently dangerous, without setting the danger in context.

I am opposed to the large-scale turnover to nuclear-power in the UK but my objections aren’t based on safety alone, although that is a factor. My major opposition is based on the huge cost of commissioning, decommissioning and the management of nuclear waste; decommissioning the existing plants alone will cost about £80billion. If the UK does build more nuclear plants they are likely to be of a French or American design, exporting high-technology jobs and skills, not to mention huge sums of cash, and when it comes to decommissioning where do you think the contracts will go?

Earlier in this thread the fact that wind-turbines were not designed or manufactured in Britain was mentioned together with the fact that even their erection was handled by foreign firms. Isn’t it funny how we have lost control of our domestic power suppliers to foreign ‘investment’ and now seem to have no choice but to spend huge sums of money buying foreign engineered products to solve our energy needs? Either that or buy our power from abroad.

I believe there is an alternative approach to our energy needs and that is to reduce demand by improving the way that energy is used and at the same time to produce more power through smaller renewable sources. Of course there will still be a need for large power stations but I think it will be possible to avoid building any more nuclear plants simply to increase capacity.

In the longer term a combination of solar and hydrogen technology could make it possible to relieve to some extent the reliance of the UK on imported oil and gas, commodities that are only going to become more expensive as world demand increases.

Finally wouldn’t it be nice for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of investment and development of some of these emerging technologies? Instead of bemoaning the fact that our manufacturing base has gone why don’t we as a nation become a world-leader in energy technologies that can be exported around the world?

With regard to the context of the dangers of nuclear power you freely admit that nuclear power plants are ‘inherently dangerous’ and admit that it is impossible to ensure that accidents do not occur and yet your solution seems to be to substantially increase the number of nuclear plants in the UK and to operate them for decades to come, all the while hoping that nothing major goes wrong. At least you freely admit that you’d be more prepared to live next to a nuclear plant than a wind-farm! 😀

Do we actually know the risk factors to which they were built?

Some interesting information from Wikipedia:

“Unit 1 was designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake. All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration was 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered. However the 2011 Sendai earthquake recorded a ground acceleration of 0.35 g (3.43 m/s2) near the epicenter.”