tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post5679936368962344207..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: The Real Cost of Wind PowerIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-23064960177115371462009-04-28T18:59:00.000+01:002009-04-28T18:59:00.000+01:00Coal and nuclear is way more expensive than what w...Coal and nuclear is way more expensive than what we pay in our bills. Tax payers and our children will pay the rest.<br /><br />Solar wind and wave is much cheaper.<br /><br />They seem more expensive because they dont have the ability to hide their costs as external costs.<br /><br />What is the true cost of energy?<br /><br />Jon chravel BScUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03538604441708893812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-5411303924127164862008-04-01T12:18:00.000+01:002008-04-01T12:18:00.000+01:00OK Simon I grant I was simplifying slightly. Techn...OK Simon I grant I was simplifying slightly. Technicaly Uranium & Plutonium are in the class of actinides just as CO2 & water are classifyable as liquids. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless your argument is purely grammatical - the fact is tht Plutonium IS fuel & the actinides of the shorter lived elements ARE what makes up waste.<BR/><BR/>I know perfectly weel that half life means what it says. It means that after 1 half life the radioactivity is halved, after 2 it is quartered & after 10 it is 1,000th (well 1,024th before you insist) which for which for materials which have half lives in months or years makes them pretty safe. You might also remeember that zero radiation isn't an optionfor anything but getting down to being no more radioactive than Aberdeenshire is reasonable aim.<BR/><BR/>alking of which Scott the odd one out is nuclear. We do have radioactives in Britain (Strontium is named after the village of Strontian in Scotland) it is merely that there is so much of it available that, like gold, there is no point in mining it here. Wind, tides & sun are unavailable in Britain for much of the time which is why they are called intermittent cannot be used as baseload.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-80702942920967870292008-04-01T10:49:00.000+01:002008-04-01T10:49:00.000+01:00Newmania said..."LAWS EMANATING FROM THE EU...Whic...<B>Newmania said...</B><BR/><BR/>"LAWS EMANATING FROM THE EU<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Which is it 70% or 10%. ?"<BR/><BR/>Don't know, but I suspect you need to distinguish between primary legislation that goes through Parliament as a consequence of a EU Directive and other laws that do not go through Parliament but which derive from the EU i.e. regulations made by a Minister and EU Regulatins.<BR/><BR/><B>dirtyeuropeansocialist said...</B><BR/><BR/>"Greenpeace... I suppose to you they are just ignorant hippies."<BR/><BR/>Ignorant, lying, fascist, hippies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-82412401955458491182008-04-01T09:04:00.000+01:002008-04-01T09:04:00.000+01:00Neil uranium is the material as it is mined & has ...Neil <BR/><BR/><EM>uranium is the material as it is mined & has indeed been lying around giving off that radioactivity since the dinosaurs were little (see my comment about low level radioactivity). Plutonium is the fuel for reactors. Hence neither are the waste. The waste is isotopes called actinides & they do have the short half life I described.</EM><BR/><BR/>Uranium and plutonium are actinides. Seriously read up on the subject from a reputable source. Also don't forget half life means half life not all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06193310695375031597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-72852743632981915292008-03-31T23:10:00.000+01:002008-03-31T23:10:00.000+01:00It is very difficult to place any degree of relian...It is very difficult to place any degree of reliance on public utterances as the battle-royal for subsidies rages. <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/29/renewableenergy.climatechange " REL="nofollow">Here's</A> a lovely example from the nuke-merchants (the EDF comment in the last 2 paras): the perverse logic there is one for the connoisseur.<BR/><BR/>The wind, coal and biofuels lobbies are also in full sail.<BR/><BR/>The simple fact is that the sheer scale of what the EU intend (and we have been signed up for) would require efforts and expenditures vastly greater than anything that is currently happening in this country, at least: see <A HREF="http://cityunslicker.blogspot.com/2008/03/eu-energy-policy-how-to-run-3-minute.html " REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://cityunslicker.blogspot.com/2008/03/not-so-green-as-cabbage-looking.html " REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Oh - and Sarkozy wants us to <A HREF="http://cityunslicker.blogspot.com/2008/03/supping-with-sarkozy-use-long-spoon.html " REL="nofollow">pay for his nuke decomissioning bill</A>, I confidently predict. Brown's just the man to sign up for this scam.Nick Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670594203660051701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-8488863047534869352008-03-31T22:47:00.000+01:002008-03-31T22:47:00.000+01:00Do we have sun in the UK? Do we have tides in the ...Do we have sun in the UK? Do we have tides in the UK? Do we have wind in the UK? Do we have uranium in the UK? Pick the odd one out.scott reddinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16201040172369428187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66382416761941530742008-03-31T22:04:00.000+01:002008-03-31T22:04:00.000+01:00Anonymous @ 11:14:"I do not beleieve that the rein...Anonymous @ 11:14:<BR/>"I do not beleieve that the reinforced concrete piers and pylons of an offshore wind turbine are strong enough to withstand the combined weight of cargo plus vessel weight of a fully laden Ultra Large (ULCC) or Very Large (VLCC) running aground onto them."<BR/><BR/>Maybe but VLCC's have a draght of 25m, whereas offshore wind farms are usually built in shallower water (the shallow bits of Liverpool Bay and the Wash), so it is very unlikely that a VLCC would hit a wind turbine before it ran aground.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13775753218753337766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78545204983758127312008-03-31T19:04:00.000+01:002008-03-31T19:04:00.000+01:00Anonymous said @ 11:02AM"Another point on windpowe...Anonymous said @ 11:02AM<BR/>"Another point on windpower; the coldest days of the winter occur when a high pressure area sits over the UK.<BR/><BR/>These high pressure areas are generally associated with light winds. So when we most need the power there won't be any."<BR/><BR/>If we are getting our heat from electricity, then we are wasting resources. Much more efficient to get it from biomass (wood), biofuels, gas or even coal.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13775753218753337766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12765070295616877362008-03-31T17:44:00.000+01:002008-03-31T17:44:00.000+01:00Well DES you insist that 250,000 (or alternately 2...Well DES you insist that 250,000 (or alternately 200,000 your assertion varies) people died at Chernobyl becuause the "neutral" Greenpeace said so.<BR/><BR/>I insist that this claim merely represents theh ighest standard of honesty to be expected from the eco-fascists. That the true figure is around 50. Thus Greenpeace & the corrupt parasites who support them are automatically proven 99.998% dishonest. <BR/><BR/>I have the UN report on my side & 50 (well OK 56) bodies to prove my thesis<BR/>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm <BR/>What do you have?<BR/><BR/>The reason the expected death figure didn't happen is because they were based on the PC theory that there is no lower limit to the level at which radiation does harm - a theory repeatedly proven untrue.<BR/><BR/>The reason we cannot build as many dams as New Zealand is hydro power is a multiple of the amount of water & distance it falls & even Scotland does not have mountains matching New Zealand,s (see Lord of the Rings).<BR/><BR/>Blackacre - the reason waste is not being buried is the same reason we are paying twice what we should for electricity & facing blackouts. Political hysteria caused by deliberate lying Luddite lobbyists & media that do not care what the truth is so long as they can say something exciting.<BR/><BR/>Simon - uranium is the material as it is mined & has indeed been lying around giving off that radioactivity since the dinosaurs were little (see my comment about low level radioactivity). Plutonium is the fuel for reactors. Hence neither are the waste. The waste is isotopes called actinides & they do have the short half life I described. <BR/><BR/>All the stuff about hundreds of thousands of years of waste from reactors is merely the highest standard of honesty to be expected from the likes of Greenpeace.<BR/><BR/>Newmania thank you very much, particularly since I managed to say the Indonesian reactors cost £500 when I meant £500 million ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42049060432000365452008-03-31T17:23:00.000+01:002008-03-31T17:23:00.000+01:00Hal Bore:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARZl4rG_4...Hal Bore:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARZl4rG_44Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-44515934279484094772008-03-31T17:12:00.000+01:002008-03-31T17:12:00.000+01:00The wind companies are not saying turbines are a p...The wind companies are not saying turbines are a permanent solution, they are saying that there needs to be an interim solution as new nuclear power stations take around 10 years to be built and come online. We need energy support inbetween that time and wind power is a great sustainable way of doing it. Unless your a nimby. Obviously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-45456128125025130972008-03-31T16:04:00.000+01:002008-03-31T16:04:00.000+01:00Why do keep removing my point that greenpeace a se...Why do keep removing my point that greenpeace a serious charity pointed out 200,000 people had died in the UKraine by 2004 alone due to Chernobyl. Is this not an issue for debate And using the term Bull is wrong of your commenter. Since when were greenpeace Bull.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-62814022587977815822008-03-31T16:03:00.000+01:002008-03-31T16:03:00.000+01:00Could we burn benefit cheats?freedom to prosperCould we burn benefit cheats?<BR/>freedom to prosperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-43909206504114282452008-03-31T16:00:00.000+01:002008-03-31T16:00:00.000+01:00I'm not against Nuclear energy and it certainly ha...I'm not against Nuclear energy and it certainly hasn't killed as many as coal burning but the de-commissioning seems very expensive. I don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket. We need a mixture and just to repeat myself all Government scientists should be locked up until they come up with a clean fuel that doesn't involve the Middle East.<BR/>I notice Tom Touhy (boss of Windscale) died the other day aged 90 so it doesn't seem to have done him much harm.<BR/>freedom to prosperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-56552604818676828102008-03-31T15:38:00.000+01:002008-03-31T15:38:00.000+01:00"These wind turbines may look a bit odd in Tunbrid..."These wind turbines may look a bit odd in Tunbridge, but up here in Scotland they represent a speck in hundreds of square miles of open, ugly, scrub."<BR/><BR/>As someone who lives in the Highlands I would strongly disagree with that. They are huge blots on the landscape and with the recent accidents involving failures of wind turbines I can imagine the whole area around the wind turbines be closed off to everybody because of the danger in the event of another failure.<BR/><BR/>How much waste is their from the UK nuclear industry now? The greenies always like to include low level waste to inflate the figures.<BR/><BR/>There are very few places left where hydro-electric schemes can be built. Those that are built tend to be quite small though probably more reliable than a wind turbine. I think Loch Uisge was the last standard hydro scheme completed and it is thought that Glendoe might be the last large pump storage scheme.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88953221982858021022008-03-31T15:34:00.000+01:002008-03-31T15:34:00.000+01:002:02 Greenpeace have said a quarter of a million d...2:02 Greenpeace have said a quarter of a million died. But I suppose to you they are just ignorant hippies. And the bnuclear lobby are allways right. Oh well only human life eh!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-43234430733260292772008-03-31T15:24:00.000+01:002008-03-31T15:24:00.000+01:00Dear Mr. Dale,I think you're full of it.Best regar...Dear Mr. Dale,<BR/><BR/>I think you're full of it.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JamesJames Bowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08128476102232612633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-54413198674251943252008-03-31T14:49:00.000+01:002008-03-31T14:49:00.000+01:00Anon at 2:02Oh so thats OK then just a few dead?Anon at 2:02<BR/><BR/>Oh so thats OK then just a few dead?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75419073618165038092008-03-31T14:44:00.000+01:002008-03-31T14:44:00.000+01:002:02 Greenpeace have said the number is over 200,0...2:02 Greenpeace have said the number is over 200,000 deaths in the Ukraine by 2004 alone. Thta is not counti ng the death figure since and in other nations across Europe. But I suppose you go along with the line that Greenpeace are lying hippies. Rather than a trustworthy responsible charity. <BR/>So be it. <BR/>So greenpeace talk Bull then, thanks for that mature view. I suppose you will tell me I am talking bull again. After all it is only human life we are talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-14597610007093959012008-03-31T14:31:00.000+01:002008-03-31T14:31:00.000+01:00Iain, In respect of an earlier question asked byGa...Iain, In respect of an earlier question asked by<BR/>Gary Elsby Stoke-on-Trent said... <BR/><BR/>Now I know he is semi illiterate but is Gary Elsby Stoke-on-Trent said... MAD?<BR/><BR/>Christopher Booker alongwith Richard North will go down, in history, as two true patriots. Unlike Gary Elsby Stoke-on-Trent said...who will go down with the rest of the socialist/labour/shower!strapworldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228784526399929300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-904860029458218292008-03-31T14:22:00.000+01:002008-03-31T14:22:00.000+01:002:02 PM What do Bulls have to do with this. Do the...2:02 PM What do Bulls have to do with this. Do they tell you your view on nuclear. <BR/>Greenpeace claimed contradictions in the Chernobyl Forum reports, quoting a 1998 WHO study referenced in the 2005 report, which projected 212 dead from 72,000 liquidators. So why did this figure suddenly fall in the meantime. In its report, Greenpeace suggested there will be 270,000 cases of cancer attributable to Chernobyl fallout, and that 93,000 of these will be fatal, but state "The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004." Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director of Greenpeace, believes cancer was likely to be the cause of less than half of the fatalities and that "intestinal problems, heart and circulation problems, respiratory problems, endocrine problems, and particularly effects on the immune system," will also cause fatalities.<BR/><BR/>So you can take the nuclear lobby's view or the view of a serious neutral charity, who are patroned by royalty. I know who I believe. I mean what possible justification would the nucelar lobby have to claim fewer deaths. Hmm apart form a few billion quid. Oh and I am sure the tobacco industry are right to say smoking does not kill anyone. LOL,.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88121661016623112862008-03-31T14:02:00.000+01:002008-03-31T14:02:00.000+01:00dirty european socialist said... "One nuclear acci...dirty european socialist said... <BR/>"One nuclear accident in Chernobyl killed 250,0000"<BR/><BR/>Bull. <BR/><BR/>The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[3]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59339544222074106332008-03-31T13:47:00.000+01:002008-03-31T13:47:00.000+01:00There is plenty of land around Chernobyl that woul...There is plenty of land around Chernobyl that would make a perfect location for nuclear power generation or storage. If there are any further leaks the environmental impact will be limited.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-58254895110257909252008-03-31T13:04:00.000+01:002008-03-31T13:04:00.000+01:00New Zealand has a better carbon record than us an ...New Zealand has a better carbon record than us an has no nuclear plants, as they built hydro electric plants in the sixties. Why can we not just build hydro electic plants, as surely they would be better than the Kiwi ones of aprevious generation. As long as they do not cause the movement of villages. There are enough uninhabited glens in Scotland, Welsh mountains ranges and Yorkshire.<BR/>This would be better than building a nuclear energy plant which could destroy entire chunks of the UK if an accident or terror attack occurred. <BR/>I realise a flood can happen from a hydro electric plant, and people will say terro attacks could be done on the dams. But try blowing up Loch ness. It is hardly easy. Why has hydro gone out of fashion?<BR/>Thnk about it Nessie would say yes and you know it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-87464058972184428312008-03-31T12:49:00.000+01:002008-03-31T12:49:00.000+01:00I really don't understand the problem with nuclear...I really don't understand the problem with nuclear power. However, I wouldn't want to live next door to one! Ugleeeeeee!<BR/><BR/>So, where do we put these new nuclear stations? What sham consultations do we go through to ensuere local people's voices are properly ignored?Scipiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06514885826616402615noreply@blogger.com