Thread: Wind v Nuclear
View Single Post
Old 26-11-2003, 18:19   #14
Chris
Trollsplatter
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 38,251
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Re: Wind v Nuclear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drudge
How would you fit approx. 30,000 of these in one or two places. And the old power stations still would be pumping out their pollution.
I admit I'm no expert, and I was basing that idea on you saying we would need about 6,000 more of them, rather than 30,000. I admit 30,000 would be a little harder to cope with, so failing that, surely there are other renewable methods we can use as well? And does anyone know for certain how many more we need?

How often are there any genuinely windless days in the Irish sea? I thought we had tons of wind out there. Additionally, I thought I read somewhere that photovoltaic cells are now effective even in cloudy situations. In time, could these not take some of the strain off coal/gas?

I think as well as being pro renewable, I am actively anti-nuclear because it seems unavoidable that once a nuke station shuts, a highly radioactive core has to remain on site for centuries. Trawsfynydd in North Wales is otherwise a beautiful part of the country, but it will be blighted for many lifetimes by the immovable remains of the old nuclear power station that was built there.
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote