"Just stop oil"

b0rn2sk8 said:
You couldn’t be more wrong (which isn’t anything new to be clear).

Wind turbines, onshore, followed by offshore is the cheapest form of electricity to build AND operate.

If they are ‘horrendously expensive to run’ what does that make coal, gas and nuclear power stations?
Click to expand...

Actually solar is the cheapest. But neither solar or wind are consistent ways to generate energy as they won't generate the same amount of energy 24/7.

What has also been excluded from the publicly viewable cost of offshore wind power is the cost of defending it. It's extremely vulnerable...
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Actually solar is the cheapest. But neither solar or wind are consistent ways to generate energy as they won't generate the same amount of energy 24/7.

What has also been excluded from the publicly viewable cost of offshore wind power is the cost of defending it. It's extremely vulnerable...
Click to expand...
And a nuclear power station sat on the coast isn’t? Or any centralised power generations for that matter….

It amazes me how much utter nonsense you manage to come up with in literally every post.
 
Remember when you were a toddler and you solved all the world's problems? Like when they said that crime was getting out of control and your four year old brain went "well I'd just hire more cops then"?

Remember that?

That's called Nasher logic.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
And a nuclear power station sat on the coast isn’t? Or any centralised power generations for that matter….

It amazes me how much utter nonsense you manage to come up with in literally every post.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is on land, it has armed MOD police guarding it, an attack doesnt have easy access to it. These wind farms need the air force and navy to protect them. They are exposed to just about everything an enemy can throw at it.

It amazes me how you manage to miss the obvious and can't put 2+2 together, or see the bugger picture.
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
We are, they are highly experimental and quite expensive. Tidal power is not trivial because you know, salt water pretty much destroys any machine out in it. They also only work in very specific areas of the coast with high tidal flows.

Roses are also variable both through their cycle and from day to day. They stop generating completely twice per day but they are predictable though.

Wind turbines also don’t have ‘short lifespans’. The irony of suggesting building tidal turbines because wind turbines have a short lifespan. It’s a shame there isn’t a face palm emoji here.

Sure you can build tidal lagoons like the one which was proposed in Swansea but again they only work in places which exceptionally high tidal ranges (different to flows) and it’s not like diverting a river estuary doesn’t have any wider impacts. It’s also unproven so it would be a complete stab in the dark and definitely not cheap.
Click to expand...
essentially arnt a lot of the tidal generators essentially like giant wind turbines anyway.... just under water.... therefore a lot of the failure parts would be comparable... albeit operating in a corrosive environment.

not knocking them however, tidal power is predictable and reliable and is certainly one of the solutions which need to be used.

imo the problem is we have had it easy for so long....... oil is pretty fantastic stuff, its just incredibly damaging. renewables are far better over all but there is no doubt they are not as easy a solution as just burning oil products. No one renewable is going to cut it, but all of them together i believe can...... and if they cant then we are a bit knackered .... or more accurately our kids / grandkids probably are.

as for maintenance (aimed at Nasher)..... sure they need some maintenance... and a damn good job too looking at it practically. With AI going the way it is, we are going to need jobs for people and engineer is a pretty good option.
but what about all the maintenance of nuclear / oil / gas powerstations and refineries.

Hinkley point's construction bill would cover a lot of renewable generation, and that is including maintenance. (not that i am saying we do not need nuclear... we likely do at least for now)

pretty sure wind turbines have around a 30 year lifespan, at which point most of the end of life parts can then be reused, either in construction or just mulched up and recycled that way.
 
Last edited:
in his defence security of energy supply is meant to be starmers thing, but, having last dibs on spare EU electricity doesn't help.
(e: and the russians took out the pipe)

Solar and on shore wind similar price, just need those dam batteries to accompany them at 4x the cost/mwh

jpaul said:
on/offshore I'd read onshore wind was typically (all in with hardware) nearer half cost/MWh of offshore .... but if UK offshore wind is twice as powerful as on shore then that could be redressed
www.powerengineeringint.com

LCOE for offshore wind now on par with coal - BNEF - Power Engineering International

According to analysis from BNEF, the global benchmark levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE, for offshore wind is now on par with coal.
www.powerengineeringint.com www.powerengineeringint.com
Click to expand...

e2:
what glue do they recommend - will they be imprisoned
www.euronews.com

Climate activists ground flights at Cologne-Bonn Airport

The coordinated protests have also other European airports from Norway to Switzerland.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
in his defence security of energy supply is meant to be starmers thing, but, having last dibs on spare EU electricity doesn't help.

Solar and on shore wind similar price, just need those dam batteries to accompany them at 4x the cost/mwh
Click to expand...
dont forget batteries come in many types.

for heating for instance, sand and stone (or actually properly designed materials which will have a much higher density still) can be used as "batteries".

not all batteries are what we automatically think of. essentially that is what pumped storage is, a massive water battery.
 
The solution is quite simple tbh, we just terraform Wales in to a few massive hydroelectric batteries and and voila, loads of stored energy.


Of course we'll need a few frigates on the dam to defend the water from the seagulls with gatling guns and maybe a few Typhoons cicrling the area because the evil russians will want to blow it all up. Seeing as we're bringing in the navy and the RAF to defend it we may as well install some wind turbines in the dams too as they also need defending from the evil seagulls and suicidal pigeons. Two birds with one stone and all that. Oh we'll also need some ships around the turbines permanently to maintain them, because apparently if they're not maintained constantly they'll catch fire and burn the northern hemisphere to the ground.
 
Diddums said:
The solution is quite simple tbh, we just terraform Wales in to a few massive hydroelectric batteries and and voila, loads of stored energy.


Of course we'll need a few frigates on the dam to defend the water from the seagulls with gatling guns and maybe a few Typhoons cicrling the area because the evil russians will want to blow it all up. Seeing as we're bringing in the navy and the RAF to defend it we may as well install some wind turbines in the dams too as they also need defending from the evil seagulls and suicidal pigeons. Two birds with one stone and all that. Oh we'll also need some ships around the turbines permanently to maintain them, because apparently if they're not maintained constantly they'll catch fire and burn the northern hemisphere to the ground.
Click to expand...
coolio. whilst we are at it can we make Ireland a big prison colony like Escape from NewYork and solve that crisis as well. (or maybe Anglesey that way we only annoy the Welsh instead of the Welsh AND the Irish)

job done.

So there we have it you have solved our Energy Demands, I have solved the prison crisis.... This is easy, what is Starmer playing at? :D
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
Offshore is more expensive than onshore.

You can generally put bigger turbines offshore but they are more expensive to build and maintain and it translates to a higher £/mwh.

As someone that lives in the East of England, I can confirm that offshore still triggers a massive reaction from the NIMBYs. It’s not just the turbines in the horizon, it’s also all the corresponding infrastructure needed onshore.

New nuclear plants, solar farms, incinerators, roads, houses and basically the building of almost anything else also trigger them. They also hate expensive electricity, expensive houses, a lack of houses, traffic and a lack of services generally.

Does anyone see the problem here?
Click to expand...
Plenty of space for offshore elsewhere, there is practically nothing on the south coast all blocked by NIMBYs years ago. E.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navitus_Bay_wind_farm
 
jpaul said:
e2:
what glue do they recommend - will they be imprisoned
www.euronews.com

Climate activists ground flights at Cologne-Bonn Airport

The coordinated protests have also other European airports from Norway to Switzerland.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com
Click to expand...
New legislation is still going through their lawmakers. Once done, the sentence will be 2-5 years in prison for breaking into an airport. For now they will get a fine.
Looks like quite a few countries are fed up of these morons now and cracking down.
Fun's over kids.
 
Last edited:
Uther said:
New legislation is still going through their lawmakers. Once done, the sentence will be 2-5 years in prison for breaking into an airport. For now they will get a fine.
Looks like quite a few countries are fed up of these morons now and cracking down.
Fun's over kids.
Click to expand...

Shame its taken so long :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom