Is “good journalism” necessarily relevant when we are discussing an interview with publicity seeking celebrities?

As far as your last sentence in brackets, now you really are speaking my language.

But given the time frame and available expertise there simply aren’t the resources to build the thousands of turbines needed, notwithstanding the costs.

My favoured option is nuclear, with two fingers up to Europe until we are ready, and at the same time develop carbon capture/coal for a mixture of that and nuclear for the 4th generation. I just don’t find the arguments for renewables convincing in terms of viability and cost. We are already paying a hidden cost of about 10% for the luxury of the little wind power we have now.

I have not seen hydro mentioned in terms of Scotland. Have they already exhausted the potential?

The builders came and we feared for and had planned for the worst. By mid-afternoon the worst was over but far, far less bad than we had feared. I’m still smiling.:)

pjhydro

The most sensible solution is in the end the fudge the govt eventually came to – use all three! Nuclear and renewables to supply the daily norm and coal-carbon capture for peak times. This isn’t a luxury, makes good sense and if done right will spark off some new industry in the UK.

Interesting comments.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the fudge include the ludicrous plan for 7 or 8,000 turbines? Surely that makes no sense, either economically or viably? By, say, 2030, by when we must have replaced all our existing power stations and added more, what is the proposed mix? What would your favoured mix be?

I had missed the reams of responses prior to grim.

But thanks to you all – my apologies for kicking a Geog teacher – it was my favourite subject at school and the teacher was one of the best. If your lessons are as you describe them, I do not need to take up your invitation – why should I doubt you – but thank you, anyway.

I shan’t go and have “fun” on the other thread – we sceptics are used to getting a good pummelling now and then but live to fight another day and bit by bit we will win through, although against massive and influential odds.

Grim901

I wasn’t trying to do anyone any favours, only trying to point out the realities as I see them. You have your views on the matter, which you have enunciated and I respect.

I think it is a really crucial problem because of the quite massive amounts of money, which few countries actually can afford, to be spent on, to my mind, a highly dubious cause. We have our Prime Minister, leading one of the most indebted nations in the West, promising to spend tens of millions of pounds we don’t have and which will further add to our mountain of debt.

And for what? For helping other nations solve a problem of which, let us be generous, the science is becoming debatable. For building thousands of wind turbines which are the most inefficient form of energy known to man as well as being very expensive through hidden subsidised pricing. If the wind doesn’t blow there is no energy, so power stations have be built in case. And the “in case” is rather a large number of days. So we are being asked to build two forms of energy provision when one would do. And that one is nuclear, which is extremely “green”.

Sorry, but, whichever way I look at it, it is a massive scam.

The old ones are often the best ones!:)

pjhydro

I won’t bother to respond in detail anymore because our views are poles apart so it is wasting space to continue the debate.

However on one point I have to say that to admit to being a Geography teacher is one thing but to be a Geography teacher with blinkers is quite another. It is quite wrong that children, who know no better, are taught only what the government of the day want them to learn, when, there are two sides to many things, not the least of which is the theory of MMGW.

If you have not read this study, now 5 years old!! I recommend it.

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/Kiliman-MAC-4-8-04.pdf