Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Yes but there are areas where tidal power is practical and could provide a good chunk of power. In fact the 200 turbines that are proposed will provide roughly enough power for up to 40% of the homes in Wales and lets be honest that's a lot of power in one go.

Roughly equivalent to taking almost 600,000 cars off the road.

Surely you can't believe in a problem but not actually want to solve it? If Nuclear is part of the solution then surely wind power is part of the solution as well.

Wales is admittedly not densely populated but if 30 or so miles of coast can provide 40% of the power needed for residential needs then if the coast is 750 miles long then you do the maths! everyone needs to do their bit surely!

Me too. In Australia most people have solar hot water systems on top of their roof and this helps a lot with not needing to burn stuff to heat water :) The problem with solar is that it's not constant enough. I suspect we'll never see a time when we don't burn fossil fuels or use nuclear energy but we can lessen the need for it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

I don't have a link to reference this to but I have read and heard that we are not even aware of how much damage nuclear energy pollution does to our planet and to our health.
It is said that mental deseases, alzheimers for example, are on the rise because of levels of radioactivity that our 'geiger" detectors can't even sense and that are out there creating havoc.

---

Thats not true, in fact its what is called pseudoscience, sounds plausible if you're not trained in that field but if you know then its obviously bs.

There are three types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma. We have equipment to detect all three though alpha travels such a short distance its really irrelevant.

Alzheimers isn't a mental disease, its a neurological one and there was some talk about a link with electromagnetic radiation ie from mobile phones and masts etc which is probably what you're getting confused with. No significant study has shown a link between Alzheimers and any type of radiation btw.

In actual fact the amount of radiation you get from nuclear power stations if you live in a country which has them is barely detectable and nothing compared to from natural sources like radon, cosmic radiation and the sun.

In fact you'll get more radiation from a one way flight to Spain than you would from a lifetime living next to a nuclear power station (from that power station only).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes but there are areas where tidal power is practical and could provide a good chunk of power. In fact the 200 turbines that are proposed will provide roughly enough power for up to 40% of the homes in Wales and lets be honest that's a lot of power in one go.

Roughly equivalent to taking almost 600,000 cars off the road.

Surely you can't believe in a problem but not actually want to solve it? If Nuclear is part of the solution then surely wind power is part of the solution as well.

Wales is admittedly not densely populated but if 30 or so miles of coast can provide 40% of the power needed for residential needs then if the coast is 750 miles long then you do the maths! everyone needs to do their bit surely!

---

You've answered the points you've raised in your own post. Supplying electricity to 40% of a sparsely populated area is vastly different to supplying the Ruhr or London.

Also tidal power is not the same as wind power so the comparison is irrelevant.

Human nature being what it is, if you build wind turbines on or near land you WILL get opposition from NIMBY parties. That is going to be a major limiting factor with wind power whether you like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

You've answered the points you've raised in your own post. Supplying electricity to 40% of a sparsely populated area is vastly different to supplying the Ruhr or London.

Also tidal power is not the same as wind power so the comparison is irrelevant.

Human nature being what it is, if you build wind turbines on or near land you WILL get opposition from NIMBY parties. That is going to be a major limiting factor with wind power whether you like it or not.

---

Yes. The good old NIMBY :) The problem with Llandudno is that it's full of old farts and they don't like change. Thing is if the turbines had been there before they wouldn't want them taken down ;)

Why does the fact that tidal power is not like wind power make it irrelevant? Surely if it can generate power without emitting greenhouse gases then it's good?

Every journey starts with a small step as they say. You recognise that there is a problem yet you don't want to sort it out? You're even nuttiier than me if this problem exists because you recognise that it exists but don't seem to want to sort it yet I don't think it exists but still advocate moves to lessen the future effects of this supposedly human induced problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Why does the fact that tidal power is not like wind power make it irrelevant? Surely if it can generate power without emitting greenhouse gases then it's good?

---

Tidal power is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make and you were trying to rebut, ie that the appearance and noise of the machines would push people to oppose them being placed near where they live. Tidal power units are not nearly as intrusive as wind farms are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Every journey starts with a small step as they say. You recognise that there is a problem yet you don't want to sort it out? You're even nuttiier than me if this problem exists because you recognise that it exists but don't seem to want to sort it yet I don't think it exists but still advocate moves to lessen the future effects of this supposedly human induced problem.

---

It would appear the problem is that you are attacking positions I am not holding. Some would describe your arguments as being strawman.

For example in your previous post you bring up tidal power stations which were not previously mentioned in this thread and which were irrelevant to the point being discussed at that point as I explained above.

If you really think I'm not interested in proposing solutions I suggest you read my posts regarding nuclear power and fuel cells/hydrogen. Its courteous to read other peoples posts properly before replying to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Tidal power is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make and you were trying to rebut, ie that the appearance and noise of the machines would push people to oppose them being placed near where they live. Tidal power units are not nearly as intrusive as wind farms are.



It would appear the problem is that you are attacking positions I am not holding. Some would describe your arguments as being strawman.

For example in your previous post you bring up tidal power stations which were not previously mentioned in this thread and which were irrelevant to the point being discussed at that point as I explained above.

If you really think I'm not interested in proposing solutions I suggest you read my posts regarding nuclear power and fuel cells/hydrogen. Its courteous to read other peoples posts properly before replying to them.

---

Huh? We're talking about global warming and you were saying that renewables would impact upon our ability to produce food

According to you global warming is caused by CO2
Common sense tells us that power generation is a primary source of CO2 emissions.
We were talking about alternative means of power generation (renewables)
Tidal power unless I'm very much mistaken is an alternative means of power generation which doesn't emit CO2 in it's day to day operation.
You talked about renewables taking up farming land
Tidal power generally doesn't impact upon farming land.

What are you on about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Huh? We're talking about global warming and you were saying that renewables would impact upon our ability to produce food

---

Errrr I thought my point was pretty easy to grasp. At the moment the main renewable energy source worldwide is biofuel.

If we switch to using renewable energy sources on a large scale, then poorer countries that are already running the risk of starvation will be at greater risk as they start shifting land from agriculture to growing renewable energy sources because they would generate more income.

As I explained in my original post which I hope you read, that isn't a problem for Europe or America which already have a food surplus but few other places are that lucky without having to grow renewable energy sources.

I am discussing the pros and cons of each potential future energy source, something that might just be relevant to this thread. I thought you were too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Tidal power unless I'm very much mistaken is an alternative means of power generation which doesn't emit CO2 in it's day to day operation.
You talked about renewables taking up farming land
Tidal power generally doesn't impact upon farming land.

What are you on about?

---

Read posts no 118 and 119.

My points were regarding WIND POWER and the fact that many people don't want ugly noisy turbines near where they live which limits their uptake which you took exception to by claiming that tidal power units aren't obtrusive. Last time I looked tidal power is different from wind power......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

I don' have a graph or an expert's quote but I look forward to the time when we can get our energy from the sun, that big red hot power generator in the sky.

---

Almost right. Earth-bound nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission, which is what we have now) will solve the problem of fossil-fuel power stations. Shame it's so bloody difficult to get working on Earth though.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Errrr I thought my point was pretty easy to grasp. At the moment the main renewable energy source worldwide is biofuel.

If we switch to using renewable energy sources on a large scale, then poorer countries that are already running the risk of starvation will be at greater risk as they start shifting land from agriculture to growing renewable energy sources because they would generate more income.

As I explained in my original post which I hope you read, that isn't a problem for Europe or America which already have a food surplus but few other places are that lucky without having to grow renewable energy sources.

I am discussing the pros and cons of each potential future energy source, something that might just be relevant to this thread. I thought you were too.



Read posts no 118 and 119.

My points were regarding WIND POWER and the fact that many people don't want ugly noisy turbines near where they live which limits their uptake which you took exception to by claiming that tidal power units aren't obtrusive. Last time I looked tidal power is different from wind power......

---

Congratulations tidal power is different to wind power.

Post 118 I said that the Gwynt y mor wind farm will not impact food production (you said it would), that the wind supply is not as variable as you said it was and you said it was noisy (it isn't)

Post 119 - You agreed with me but stated that it's not the correct solution for the whole of Europe and mentioned that not all of Europe is like North Wales. Funny that!

Post 120 - I stated that in addition you could have tidal power and that by themselves the gwynt y more turbines will generate 40% of the household power needed for Wales and said that Wales is not densely populated. On looking at the statistics it's actually more densely populated than Europe on average.

Post 124 - Some sort of magic mushroom slipped into your tea and the hallucinogenic effects caused you to imagine that I was comparing wind power and tidal power in some way which I never did.

I never took offense to it by saying that tidal power isn't obtrusive. I merely stated that I live near a freaking windfarm and it doesn't dominate the freaking scenery and it isn't freaking noisy.