Jenny you are right about the waste, and it has to be worked on, I am sure we are intelligent enough to find a solution, However, no-one has answered the most burning question in the energy debate. It really is not that impoartant whether or not it is carbon output that is cuasing global warming, but it is well known that we will run out of fossil fuel within a hundred years at the current rate of use.
If we do not use nuclear power, given the power needs (we are all sat at home in warm houses with our pc's, tv's fridges and electric lights, how are we going to make enough electricity to keep the world in the style to which it is accustomed? Wind, tidal, hydro electric and solar technologies are not yet advanced enough and I cannot believe that no one will have wind turbine on their countryside vista. We, as consuming human beings, deserve all that we will get as a consequence of that consumption. Mr Blair has today said we need to cut our carbong footprint by 60% by 2050, will you all accept power rationing? Use candles again, have a wind up television? Probably not is the answer, get real....without a solution we have to keep nuclear going and deal with the waste problem in the best way we can.
Global Warming
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
Hi Jenny,
When Barney talks about the anti-nuclear lobby using
incorrect information he is perfectly correct.
There has been so much theory about nuclear power that has passed into myth and legend as is now accepted as fact by the anti campaigners but in truth is still only sheer theory.
The ANC's are still shouting about the building of power stations as though the Nuclear Industry has stood still all these years and that modern power stations will be replicas of the old.
I is true that decommissioning is, to a degree, difficult and when the present units were built not too much attention was paid to decommissioning but the ones that I hope will be built shortly will be a different kettle of fish.
As of tonight's news I think that the government are simply using global warming as a smoke screen to take the pressure off themselves.
60% carbon reduction by 2050. Well most of us, especially me will not be around to see if they make their target or not and when it gets to 2050 they wont give a fig if they do or they don't.
The other piece of information that I thought relative to this debate is that at present UK only produce 2% of the worlds CO2. 60% of 2% is a bloody small amount and the turmoil that they are going to put us all through is to be believed. I would liken it to standing on Lands End having a Pee into the Atlantic with every endeavour of changing the tide!!! Totally bloody futile!!!
It seems that politicians have always got money to throw away yet when it comes to doing something in education or the building better hospitals improving dangerous roads they plead poverty. Well I for one do not intend to change for the sake of changing and being that my life span is nearly spanned.
I am due to sell up here and I really am now seriously thinking of emigrating because I simply do not like the direction this country is moving in.
Compo this ranting is catching!
JB.
When Barney talks about the anti-nuclear lobby using
incorrect information he is perfectly correct.
There has been so much theory about nuclear power that has passed into myth and legend as is now accepted as fact by the anti campaigners but in truth is still only sheer theory.
The ANC's are still shouting about the building of power stations as though the Nuclear Industry has stood still all these years and that modern power stations will be replicas of the old.
I is true that decommissioning is, to a degree, difficult and when the present units were built not too much attention was paid to decommissioning but the ones that I hope will be built shortly will be a different kettle of fish.
As of tonight's news I think that the government are simply using global warming as a smoke screen to take the pressure off themselves.
60% carbon reduction by 2050. Well most of us, especially me will not be around to see if they make their target or not and when it gets to 2050 they wont give a fig if they do or they don't.
The other piece of information that I thought relative to this debate is that at present UK only produce 2% of the worlds CO2. 60% of 2% is a bloody small amount and the turmoil that they are going to put us all through is to be believed. I would liken it to standing on Lands End having a Pee into the Atlantic with every endeavour of changing the tide!!! Totally bloody futile!!!
It seems that politicians have always got money to throw away yet when it comes to doing something in education or the building better hospitals improving dangerous roads they plead poverty. Well I for one do not intend to change for the sake of changing and being that my life span is nearly spanned.
I am due to sell up here and I really am now seriously thinking of emigrating because I simply do not like the direction this country is moving in.
Compo this ranting is catching!
JB.
-
Tony Hague
- KG Regular
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
- Contact:
Johnboy wrote:The other piece of information that I thought relative to this debate is that at present UK only produce 2% of the worlds CO2.
But the UK population in only a tad under 1% of the world population, so we are using twice our fair share. So do you think you are better than the people who live in rural China, or impoverished African countries to deserve the extra allowance ?
-
submariner
- KG Regular
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: Kenfig Hill, South Wales
Watching Paxman on News night last night, and I was amazed at the off hand manner that the minister was using. That was until he started stuttering whe Paxman asked him about BUYING THE SPARE CO2 FROM A DEVELOPING WORLD. It appears that if we do not meet our taget (back in Russia) then we can buy off the developing world what we fail to achieve!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If ever there was a cop out, that's it.
As has been said, if we do not use Nuclear power, what are we to do? If the FOE have their way will disinvent(?) the wheel! There was a good point made about technology. When Dreadnought our first nuclear submarine was built, it was programmed in for several changes of core, befor de-commissioning. The latest Astute class will now not have to change the core unill the submarine is de-commissioned, a life span of about 25 years or longer.
By the time the (if any) nuclear power stations are de-commissioned, who knows what might happen?
Incidentally, submarines have been around as a true entity, since about 1900. We had our first in 1901. My point being that in 107 years submarines have evolved from 6 man, petrol driven machines without on board toilets, to what we have today. So who knows where we will be in 50 more years, in the nuclear world?
Please don't hide your heads Ostridge like, progress and technology must move on.
If ever there was a cop out, that's it.
As has been said, if we do not use Nuclear power, what are we to do? If the FOE have their way will disinvent(?) the wheel! There was a good point made about technology. When Dreadnought our first nuclear submarine was built, it was programmed in for several changes of core, befor de-commissioning. The latest Astute class will now not have to change the core unill the submarine is de-commissioned, a life span of about 25 years or longer.
By the time the (if any) nuclear power stations are de-commissioned, who knows what might happen?
Incidentally, submarines have been around as a true entity, since about 1900. We had our first in 1901. My point being that in 107 years submarines have evolved from 6 man, petrol driven machines without on board toilets, to what we have today. So who knows where we will be in 50 more years, in the nuclear world?
Please don't hide your heads Ostridge like, progress and technology must move on.
Love veg!
the pro nucleur power lobby also spouts a lot of dubious "facts",
im typing this as it comes without checking any "facts"
we have had nucleur power stations running in the uk for 50 years now, didnt calder hall start producing in the fifties? some of them are allready past their useful life and are shut down, Hinkley a, berkeley to name but two in this neck of the woods.
as i understand it the waste from these reactors, and we are talking about tons of concrete rubble, scrap steel piping etc not just the high grade stuff from the cores themselves, will remain radioactive for thousands of years. even the stuff sent to sellafield for processing isnt somehow destroyed, its converted to something not quite so highly radioactive which then has to be stored. the storage used at the moment is a short term solution of immersing the waste in water tanks. the old method of sticking padioactive waste in steel drums and throwing them in the atlantic has now been stopped.
the only proposed solution to this problem appears to be burying waste somewhere where there is solid soil or rock with no groundwater movement. Oh and you cant stick too much in the same hole in case it gets hot enough to go bang.
i have looked at one industry website recently which gave an outline of the decommissioning process for a particular plant, but appart from saying the buildings would demolished and the site become available for reuse, it gave no outline of how or when.
im typing this as it comes without checking any "facts"
we have had nucleur power stations running in the uk for 50 years now, didnt calder hall start producing in the fifties? some of them are allready past their useful life and are shut down, Hinkley a, berkeley to name but two in this neck of the woods.
as i understand it the waste from these reactors, and we are talking about tons of concrete rubble, scrap steel piping etc not just the high grade stuff from the cores themselves, will remain radioactive for thousands of years. even the stuff sent to sellafield for processing isnt somehow destroyed, its converted to something not quite so highly radioactive which then has to be stored. the storage used at the moment is a short term solution of immersing the waste in water tanks. the old method of sticking padioactive waste in steel drums and throwing them in the atlantic has now been stopped.
the only proposed solution to this problem appears to be burying waste somewhere where there is solid soil or rock with no groundwater movement. Oh and you cant stick too much in the same hole in case it gets hot enough to go bang.
i have looked at one industry website recently which gave an outline of the decommissioning process for a particular plant, but appart from saying the buildings would demolished and the site become available for reuse, it gave no outline of how or when.
There is a temptation to try to seek the One Perfect Answer to global warming. There isn't one, whether we consider nuclear power, wind turbines, solar panels and so on. No "magic bullet", as they say.
What we need is an energy policy that uses a little bit of everything, on a smaller scale, so that all eventualities are covered. Government should be enabling a mix of energy conservation first (as we all waste a lot) and subsidise insulation; discourage stand-bys; prohibit all-night office lighting and other wasteful uses of lights; subsidise and encourage saving light-bulbs etc etc.
Then it should put money and research encouragement into all sorts of sustainable generation, including tidal barrages, solar panels for hot water, CHP zones, better batteries, water power (they use it in North Wales to provide daytime power by using off-peak night power to pump water uphill and then use its downhill power generation during the day) etc. All these should be done on a small scale as well as a large scale and feed into the national grid. Biomass small-scale power-stations for a small area could be subsidised.
We need to encourage even more the use of electric cars and other non-fossil forms of fuel and put money into making railways, buses, trams etc MUCH cheaper.
None of these produce the huge waste problem of nuclear. I agree that our nuclear power stations are some of the safest during their operation, but the waste problem has not been sorted; the stations could be a magnet for a terrorist threat; plus there are problems over safety and provenance of uranium mines; plus there is still a possibility of earthquakes or other natural phenomenon that could destabilise a power station; plus the availability of radioactive materials make it easier for criminals to access materials that could be used for nuclear bombs. They are also extremely expensive. I would so much rather that all that money was spread across all the different forms of power generation encouragement, that have it all spent on a few nuclear stations which carry these risks with them.
Interesting article in the Independent today, citing the misleading nature of the graphs used in the Channel 4 programme (which Ch 4 are now disowning as fast as they can).
I agree with submariner that it is utterly ridiculous to cop out on measures to combat global warming by buying emissions allotted to another country! This doesn't solve anything.
Johnboy, please don't emigrate, we would really miss your huge knowledge of vegetable growing. Anyway, where would you go? Global warming is making it rather difficult: Australia is so drought-ridden they are banning ordinary light-bulbs; USA is suffering more unstable weather conditions these days, including worse hurricanes in the South, lack of rainfall in the West, too much snowfall in the East and lots of tornados in the Middle; in many other countries there is a lack of enough winter snow, which is affecting their summer water reserves (especially Spain and northern China); the Mediterranean countries are having hotter and hotter summers with less and less water. Do stay!
Alison.
What we need is an energy policy that uses a little bit of everything, on a smaller scale, so that all eventualities are covered. Government should be enabling a mix of energy conservation first (as we all waste a lot) and subsidise insulation; discourage stand-bys; prohibit all-night office lighting and other wasteful uses of lights; subsidise and encourage saving light-bulbs etc etc.
Then it should put money and research encouragement into all sorts of sustainable generation, including tidal barrages, solar panels for hot water, CHP zones, better batteries, water power (they use it in North Wales to provide daytime power by using off-peak night power to pump water uphill and then use its downhill power generation during the day) etc. All these should be done on a small scale as well as a large scale and feed into the national grid. Biomass small-scale power-stations for a small area could be subsidised.
We need to encourage even more the use of electric cars and other non-fossil forms of fuel and put money into making railways, buses, trams etc MUCH cheaper.
None of these produce the huge waste problem of nuclear. I agree that our nuclear power stations are some of the safest during their operation, but the waste problem has not been sorted; the stations could be a magnet for a terrorist threat; plus there are problems over safety and provenance of uranium mines; plus there is still a possibility of earthquakes or other natural phenomenon that could destabilise a power station; plus the availability of radioactive materials make it easier for criminals to access materials that could be used for nuclear bombs. They are also extremely expensive. I would so much rather that all that money was spread across all the different forms of power generation encouragement, that have it all spent on a few nuclear stations which carry these risks with them.
Interesting article in the Independent today, citing the misleading nature of the graphs used in the Channel 4 programme (which Ch 4 are now disowning as fast as they can).
I agree with submariner that it is utterly ridiculous to cop out on measures to combat global warming by buying emissions allotted to another country! This doesn't solve anything.
Johnboy, please don't emigrate, we would really miss your huge knowledge of vegetable growing. Anyway, where would you go? Global warming is making it rather difficult: Australia is so drought-ridden they are banning ordinary light-bulbs; USA is suffering more unstable weather conditions these days, including worse hurricanes in the South, lack of rainfall in the West, too much snowfall in the East and lots of tornados in the Middle; in many other countries there is a lack of enough winter snow, which is affecting their summer water reserves (especially Spain and northern China); the Mediterranean countries are having hotter and hotter summers with less and less water. Do stay!
Alison.
-
alan refail
- KG Regular
- Posts: 7254
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
- Been thanked: 7 times
I wish I had Compo's faith. He said
I am sure we are intelligent enough to find a solution.
Feeling in a cynical mood, as usual, I am tempted to ask what have we ever been intelligent enough to find a permanent solution to? Where is world peace? happiness and prosperity for all? health for everyone? freedom from fear? freedom from hunger? and, for that matter, safe and sustainable sources of energy?
Perhaps, Compo, like so many of us, you're just whistling in the dark -
Whenever I feel afraid
I hold my head erect
And whistle a happy tune
So no one will suspect
I'm afraid.
The result of this deception
Is very strange to tell,
For when I fool the people I fear
I fool myself as well!
I am sure we are intelligent enough to find a solution.
Feeling in a cynical mood, as usual, I am tempted to ask what have we ever been intelligent enough to find a permanent solution to? Where is world peace? happiness and prosperity for all? health for everyone? freedom from fear? freedom from hunger? and, for that matter, safe and sustainable sources of energy?
Perhaps, Compo, like so many of us, you're just whistling in the dark -
Whenever I feel afraid
I hold my head erect
And whistle a happy tune
So no one will suspect
I'm afraid.
The result of this deception
Is very strange to tell,
For when I fool the people I fear
I fool myself as well!
Cred air o bob deg a glywi, a thi a gei rywfaint bach o wir (hen ddihareb Gymraeg)
Believe one tenth of what you hear, and you will get some little truth (old Welsh proverb)
Believe one tenth of what you hear, and you will get some little truth (old Welsh proverb)
-
peter
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5879
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:54 pm
- Location: Near Stansted airport
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
- Contact:
I'm afraid I take the view that the current fuss over carbon is just our politicians posturing, desperate to be seen to do something, anything.
This gives them the chance to strut around and tell us to do stuff, while they enact pointless laws on things they know f*** all about.
Do you know much about lightbulbs?
I don't but the media are now saying that an ordinary light bulb is cleaner in its manufacture and disposal than these low energy ones, which contain mercury and have to be left on 24x7 to work at their best efficiency.
It's like the local council recycling stuff.
We the earnest hopeful worried electorate, patiently sort our crap, only to find out some of it is shipped to China to be processed in unlicenced openair operations that are turning areas of China into chemical hell on earth.
The we find our council proposing to charge us by weight for our rubbish, without any reduction in Council Tax at all.
So we then find the less scrupulous adding their crap to ur bin, so what can we do, lock it, put it out when the bin lorry arrives?
No cos if its locked or not out then it does not get collected.
Otheres just dump their crap in the street or countryside, the more honest but less environmentally minded incinerate in their gardens.
The law of un-intended consequences.
That is the law we will be living under, that is the law that parliament will be enacting.
This gives them the chance to strut around and tell us to do stuff, while they enact pointless laws on things they know f*** all about.
Do you know much about lightbulbs?
I don't but the media are now saying that an ordinary light bulb is cleaner in its manufacture and disposal than these low energy ones, which contain mercury and have to be left on 24x7 to work at their best efficiency.
It's like the local council recycling stuff.
We the earnest hopeful worried electorate, patiently sort our crap, only to find out some of it is shipped to China to be processed in unlicenced openair operations that are turning areas of China into chemical hell on earth.
The we find our council proposing to charge us by weight for our rubbish, without any reduction in Council Tax at all.
So we then find the less scrupulous adding their crap to ur bin, so what can we do, lock it, put it out when the bin lorry arrives?
No cos if its locked or not out then it does not get collected.
Otheres just dump their crap in the street or countryside, the more honest but less environmentally minded incinerate in their gardens.
The law of un-intended consequences.
That is the law we will be living under, that is the law that parliament will be enacting.
Do not put off thanking people when they have helped you, as they may not be there to thank later.
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
-
Chantal
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5665
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Rugby, Warwickshire
- Been thanked: 1 time
Compact fluorescent lamps only save money if you leave them on. They use most of their electricity in the ignition process. Switching them on and off as you go in and out of a room is NOT cost effective. However, this hasn't been mentioned in all the "change to CFls and turn them off" statements. I have CFls where the lights are left on for a good length of time and ordinary lamps for a quick switch on/off ie bathroom.
The carbon emission argument is totally different to the money saving one but they're trying to sell it as a double.
The carbon emission argument is totally different to the money saving one but they're trying to sell it as a double.
Chantal
I know this corner of the earth, it smiles for me...
I know this corner of the earth, it smiles for me...
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 355956.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 355956.ece
the independant article referred to by mole ends by comparing todays average temps with those over the last one thousand years, how can there be any accurate measurement of worldwide averge temps a thousand years ago?, did william the conqueror's moband his contemperies worldwide have accurate thermometers and keep records...
-
Compo
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1428
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:58 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Been thanked: 14 times
Alan you said:
Perhaps, Compo, like so many of us, you're just whistling in the dark.
Cynicism is as much a waste of energy as is leaving the light on, or worse. What about the inventor of penicillin, chemotherapy and people like Newton and Einstein, if they had your cynicism, well the world would be a severely different place. We must invest in the scientific community, look at me and my pacemaker, how amazing a bit of kit is that, smaller than a credit card inserted in half an hour under local anaesethetic, without it I would be an invalid or worse....who thought of that?
Dont' tell me that we cannot use these sciences to reverse the problem or even confirm it is actually global warming, I do not have any smart quotes except this one.
Quitters never win
Winners never quit
and my own quote is this.....
You have no right to give up hope on this planet, at least for the sake of our children if not for yourself.
Perhaps, Compo, like so many of us, you're just whistling in the dark.
Cynicism is as much a waste of energy as is leaving the light on, or worse. What about the inventor of penicillin, chemotherapy and people like Newton and Einstein, if they had your cynicism, well the world would be a severely different place. We must invest in the scientific community, look at me and my pacemaker, how amazing a bit of kit is that, smaller than a credit card inserted in half an hour under local anaesethetic, without it I would be an invalid or worse....who thought of that?
Dont' tell me that we cannot use these sciences to reverse the problem or even confirm it is actually global warming, I do not have any smart quotes except this one.
Quitters never win
Winners never quit
and my own quote is this.....
You have no right to give up hope on this planet, at least for the sake of our children if not for yourself.
If I am not on the plot, I am not happy.........
-
Jenny Green
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:47 pm
- Location: East Midlands
richard p wrote:the independant article referred to by mole ends by comparing todays average temps with those over the last one thousand years, how can there be any accurate measurement of worldwide averge temps a thousand years ago?, did william the conqueror's moband his contemperies worldwide have accurate thermometers and keep records...
There are several methods scientists use for gauging average temperatures from long ago. One of these is drilling cores from lake beds and analysing the pollen deposits from down the ages, as certain plants proliferate at certain temperatures. I'm not an expert but I can find out more information for you if you want.
Submariner said:
Please don't hide your heads Ostridge like, progress and technology must move on.
Exactly the same can be said for those who cling to old technology (nuclear power). There's a world of difference between trying to find a solution to the problem of nuclear waste, which humanity has been working on for fifty years or more without a realistic answer, and improving and enhancing sustainable energy production. This is the
long term and far less potentially harmful answer to our energy problems. The nuclear lobby is powerful because it has big business behind it. Sustainable energy research has historically had far less money invested in it and yet it continues to make strides forward in efficiency. Sustainable energy is the future, not nuclear. The sun isn't going to go out, waves are not going to stop moving and the wind isn't going to stop blowing. Nor is the heat at the centre of the earth going to dissipate.
IN THE mountain village of Kara Agach in Kyrgyzstan people are unwittingly eating radioactive waste. Radium left behind by more than two decades of uranium mining during the Soviet era has contaminated their chickens, milk, potatoes and pears.
A new study by Belgian and Kyrgyz scientists has shown that villagers are receiving radiation doses up to 40 times the internationally recommended safety limit, mostly from the food they grow. If the uranium waste dumps were dislodged by earthquakes or landslides, thousands more could be in danger. "There is a potential for a radiological disaster to happen," says Hildegarde Vandenhove from the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre in Mol.
Is this the legacy we want to leave the world's children?
(Formerly known as 'Organic Freak')
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.
-
submariner
- KG Regular
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 12:07 pm
- Location: Kenfig Hill, South Wales
I have learned one thing from this excellent discussion. The for's will never change and neither will the anti's. Enough said, I think!
Love veg!
Hi Jenny,
You quote William the Conqueror and I'll quote Oliver Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell died of Malaria and according to the "experts" this week The Mosquito responsible for Malaria needs about 16C to live and breed so what was the temperature when he was about? Then you can come to the much later period when the rivers used to freeze over eg, Winter Fairs held ON the river Thames. In the periods in between these recorded events, temperatures have been going up and down like yo-yo's. When the Danes first inhabited Greenland it was just that, a green land. There are farms buried in the snow and ice that are just beginning to be uncovered again. There is a castle in Wales that had one side protected from invasion by the sea yet it is now 700 yards inland. All these are pointers to what has been happening over the centuries and what is happening today is nothing but normal for the planet earth but it seems that it has to be Co2 produce by man that is responsible. Well I'm afraid that I am one person who believes that the Sun is responsible for Global Warming and until mankind can say he can control the Sun then and only then will anything that man does effect Global Warming.
I do not mean that we should not smarten our act up and that fossil fuels be used as efficiently as possible but the recent legislation I fear will only cause us all a load of grief and no end result.
However many fears you can whistle up on Nuclear Power I think this is the way that we should proceed.
I feel Jenny that we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Just this morning it has been announced that the government have OK'd a Tidal Generator that will provide enough electricity for 5000 homes. Seeing that there are 25,000,000 million households in the UK it really is a spit in the ocean. I understand that there are about 50 such sites around the UK coast that are suitable but although I like the technology it really isn't anywhere enough.
JB.
You quote William the Conqueror and I'll quote Oliver Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell died of Malaria and according to the "experts" this week The Mosquito responsible for Malaria needs about 16C to live and breed so what was the temperature when he was about? Then you can come to the much later period when the rivers used to freeze over eg, Winter Fairs held ON the river Thames. In the periods in between these recorded events, temperatures have been going up and down like yo-yo's. When the Danes first inhabited Greenland it was just that, a green land. There are farms buried in the snow and ice that are just beginning to be uncovered again. There is a castle in Wales that had one side protected from invasion by the sea yet it is now 700 yards inland. All these are pointers to what has been happening over the centuries and what is happening today is nothing but normal for the planet earth but it seems that it has to be Co2 produce by man that is responsible. Well I'm afraid that I am one person who believes that the Sun is responsible for Global Warming and until mankind can say he can control the Sun then and only then will anything that man does effect Global Warming.
I do not mean that we should not smarten our act up and that fossil fuels be used as efficiently as possible but the recent legislation I fear will only cause us all a load of grief and no end result.
However many fears you can whistle up on Nuclear Power I think this is the way that we should proceed.
I feel Jenny that we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Just this morning it has been announced that the government have OK'd a Tidal Generator that will provide enough electricity for 5000 homes. Seeing that there are 25,000,000 million households in the UK it really is a spit in the ocean. I understand that there are about 50 such sites around the UK coast that are suitable but although I like the technology it really isn't anywhere enough.
JB.