"The business secretary admitted it would change Britain's coastline, and
mean higher electricity bills."

Why does it always ultimately mean we'll pay more? The "fuel" is free.

gazzafield wrote:

You don't expect electrickery to be too cheap to meter do you? ;)

and look:

'"We applaud any initiative to boost the contribution of renewable
energy sources within a balanced energy portfolio," said vice president
Sue Ion, ex-technical director of British Nuclear Fuels'

Former technical director of BNF is called Sue ION!

gazzafield (gazzafield )
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

But construction & maintenance aren't.

Adrian wrote:

Really?

"gazzafield" wrote in
message news:kKudnZyHztpCwcDanZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@pipex.net...

The whole story is utter bollocks, as usual for something from politicians.
Doing the maths, it means every one of the 7000 turbines producing in excess
of 4MW at all times. This is unrealistic in the extreme. Anyway, I don't
believe their figures for the total energy requirement. I did look them up
once and think they're bigger. And the wind doesn't blow all the time.
Putting all your power eggs in one windbag basket is as foolish as relying
100%% on coal or gas.

More gesture politics which'll never see it to reality.

Wind and tide are guaranteed up the west coast in the Hebrides but savings
will soon be whittled away by needing 'sensitive' planning so it can connect
up to the National Grid

gazzafield wrote:

All "fuel" is "free".

On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, "Porridge Wog" btopenworld.com> wrote:

Tide is guaranteed everywhere! But, in the rest of the UK, wind
certainly isn't (this morning for instance). So even if we surround
our coastline with wind-turbines then we still need to build back-up
power stations (coal/gas/nuclear) for when the wind doesn't blow
(until they can invent a way to store electricity). That "plan" gives
us twice as much generating capacity, used at nowhere near its full
capacity - not very efficient and no wonder it's going to cost so
much. If CO2 emission reduction is the ultimate goal than surely
better to just go all nuclear like France?

"gazzafield" wrote in
message news:kKudnZyHztpCwcDanZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@pipex.net...

Because the UK has the least cost effective "renewable" policy in Europe?

Steve Firth wrote:

Not round here, it's far from insignificant even allowing for it's cycles.

The Severn bore could be a major source of reliable power if a dam was
built across the narrows of the Bristol Channel. Works in the Netherlands.