If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Wind - too expensive for more than about 10% of our energy, and they use massive amounts of concrete which means huge amounts of CO2 being produced.
Wave - see above
Solar - again too expencive and not feasable here
Fosil fuels - dirty, unreliable, market unstable
Spend less time pissing about on discussion sites on the internet would be one way.............
That's not a price I want to pay.
yeh but with wind we should get its potential, and in no way is the amount of building material involved in turbines comparable to a nuclear power station
nuclear power stations tend to last 25-30years at most, building one is hugely energy intensive, so is preparing the fuel, and so is storing it safely - the only thing a nuclear power station has going for it, is that for the time it's running it's stable
tidal in this country would work well btw
we do need more wind and tidal "power stations" but we need to replace our nuclear ones that are soon to be decommisioned for stability
make those energy saving lightbulbs compulsory and stop people having above 26 degrees on their thermostats
It is many many tonnes of concrete per turbine, more if they are at sea, concrete manufactor is one of the big causes of CO2 emmissions.
And no, people should be able to have their houses really warm if they want to pay for it.