=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
wind farms
Log In to post a reply
42 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Bonzo the Cat
Bonzo the Cat
138 posts

Re: wind farms
May 03, 2006, 16:45
> If like me, you're just talking about an extension to the lifespan of
> current reactors (incidentally, they can't be extended much beyond
> a handful of years) then we're not really at cross-purposes.

I am basically, so I guess we're not at cross-purposes, although I would still like to see asap as much fossile fuel as possible replaced by non-greengas producing sources, and that can be renewables, but where that supply falls short, nuclear can be the short-term solution.


> Direct from the horses mouth. The key lines, in this context, are:
>>
>> [a]t current rates of consumption, existing and
>> estimated uranium reserves recoverable ... are
>> sufficient for only about 50-60 years. Growth in
>> the nuclear industry will reduce this period.
>>
>That's pretty damn specific.

I stand completely corrected


> So using "uranium from seawater" or "low-grade uranium" is almost
> willful pollution. You gain precisely nothing over and above wind power
> except for a bunch of waste problems.
> Also, I'm incredibly sceptical of any "solution" to our energy supply
> problems that radically increases energy demand (as the extraction of > uranium from 'trace' sources would do).

Admitted, but like you and I agree, this nuclear thing would basically serve as an emergency to save the planet while we continue to work on renewables. And while I'm not saying the problem will be solved within the short time span of half a century, at least nuclear gives us time.


> So if you use Austrian numbers instead of Swedish (both of whom have
> roughly 25.4% renewable energy), it would mean "GB would have to
> be 2.4 (two point four!) times larger than it currently is." I hope this
> demonstrates the meaninglessness of caculating energy potential
> based upon population density.

It does, thanks. Still I wonder where on earth Belgium would get its energy from. Didn't know about Dagenham by the way. That's fabulous, even though hilariously ironic.


> Offshore windfarms (on the Atlantic coast of Europe) could meet the
> electricity needs of all Europe, not just a handful of Swedes.

Sounds indeed promising, and who would be bothered if they stand off the coast far enough. Still, sceptic as I am, I'd like to see it in figures. So should you have a link...

In any case, I've learned a great bunch here today because of you. Huge thanks dude! The less ingorant I am as an ignorant bastard, the more I can dwell on this bastardness.

One more thing about energy, and non-electricity: One of the problems is that people are just paying too little for energy. I mean, I admit that I like the idea of flying to Scotland for £1, but this is ridiculous. I don't pay the real cost there. No one pays the real cost of the energy they consume. What's it called in economics? marginal costs? I refer to the price not of the thing, but of the damage it causes etc. - 10 years ago it wasn't that obvious for anyone to fly off to faraway places every holiday. But that's another discussion.

And now off to dinner table, tis almost 7

-arf
In reply to:
Re: wind farms (grufty jim)		 Replies:
Re: wind farms (grufty jim)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index