-
Posts
-
This brings me back to the point that global warming is a red herring because we need to save energy and move to renewables anyway because of a much more tangible reason – fossil fuels are running out, or soon will be, and what’s left will have to be spread around a much more worldwide demand.
The earth has been spinning on its axis for about 4.55 billion years..has seen entire species come and go beneath the cycles of the sun..and the tree-huggers reckon we can stop the ice caps melting by cycling to work and living on mung-beans.
God must be pissing himself :twisted:
Yes but the tree huggers are right about the looming energy shortage. In the 70’s they were rigging up wind turbines made from scrap, now wind turbines are high tech engineering and big business.
@bassingbourne55 wrote:
Yes but the tree huggers are right about the looming energy shortage. In the 70’s they were rigging up wind turbines made from scrap, now wind turbines are high tech engineering and big business.
And a blot on the landscape!
@bassingbourne55 wrote:
This brings me back to the point that global warming is a red herring because we need to save energy and move to renewables anyway because of a much more tangible reason – fossil fuels are running out, or soon will be, and what’s left will have to be spread around a much more worldwide demand.
How is it a red herring and renewables are expensive maintenance wise And oil and gas is running out coal certainly isnt maybe it would be better to find a way of burning coal cleanly if not nuclear is the only real alternative
Wind energy is only part of the solution but it”s a useful resource. The proposed London Array in the Thames estuary is intended to propvide electricity for 750,000 homes.
You need between 500 2MW turbines to produce the equivalent energy of one nuclear plant, which seems a lot if they are on land but offshore, where the wind is more reliable, they make sense. And they don’t have the decommissioning costs of nuclear.@bassingbourne55 wrote:
Wind energy is only part of the solution but it”s a useful resource. The proposed London Array in the Thames estuary is intended to propvide electricity for 750,000 homes.
You need between 500 2MW turbines to produce the equivalent energy of one nuclear plant, which seems a lot if they are on land but offshore, where the wind is more reliable, they make sense. And they don’t have the decommissioning costs of nuclear.but damn site larger maintenance costs
Mainteneance costs – but no need to go to the trouble and expense of mining coal if you want to expand coal-fired
Blame Maggie for shutting the pits
Maggie and Scargill between them
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!