|
| Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51 | ||||
| ||||
Quote:
They'd be very good at adding character to the Crouch and Blackwater valleys |
#52 | ||||
| ||||
Quote:
+1 ... |
#53 | |||
| |||
Yer a real asthetic addition to countryside and the same people get the hump when Prescot sanctions the building of millions of new homes. sorry no excuse for blotting any landscape vandalism is vandalism regardless of the benefits. As for pylons how are they going to get the eletricity off the island and too the grid more blotts. To achieve the same output the whole of the country would be covered end to end total madness its knee jerk reaction to a problem that ministers have'nt planned for. I've never had criminal intent but if lived on those islands i'd sabotage as many as i could. small community crushed by big business at the end of the day,green is not always good. |
#54 | ||||
| ||||
Good Debate I don't belong to any environmental groups nor am I an eco activist - I also do not have any interests in the rail industry. Now that's clear I'd just like to thank everyone for holding this very good debate - most interesting. I'd just like to say that the human race is killing the planet and for those with an open mind, ears and eyes will see the truth. The Al Gore docufilm is as good a place as any to start. As for trains - they are the most fuel efficient way presently of transporting both people and frieght quickly. There are many independent studies out there that consistently validate this. Now wouldn't it be great for Ducati to become the first bike manufacturer to have a hybrid fuel highly competitive GP race n road sports n touring bike, and, for Ducati to distribute their bike from factory to individual markets by rail. |
#55 | |||
| |||
From little acorns they say but when councils start prosecuting people for stupid mistakes when recylcing and start charging more money to take away refuse that they already pay towards in the council tax and then start putting cameras at tips and chips in bins its going to total alienate the very people that could make a difference. All this heavy handyness is going to do is increase resentment and give most people the impression that enviromental issues are just another excuse to raise tax revenues. 2007 will be the year of the flytipper and if we cant get hygenic refuse collection under controll what chance have you with Global warming. |
#56 | ||||
| ||||
Quote:
And conventional or nuclear power stations are NOT blots on the landscape? Image1.jpg Given a choice, I'd rather look out on a valley dotted with wind turbines than a valley with a bl**dy great coal-fired power station in it! Wind and wave power generation sited offshore seems to be the current favourite (and by offshore I mean IN THE SEA, similar to oil and gas platforms) as this gives access to the power needed and has less visual impact (higher costs and almost as high environmental impact, tho). The truth is, until we find a source of power better than electricity we are stuck with electrical power generation in one form or another. Renewable energy could only ever produce a fraction of our electricity needs, but even 30% of our requirements produced by low-pollution means is better than none. And if anyone says that wind or wave is non-polluting, they've got that wrong. Both require vast amounts of concrete, steel, plastics, lead and copper and they don't get produced without polluting by-products. |
#57 | |||
| |||
Quote:
Never said that power stations or any other forms of industrial use are not blots. wind turbines as objects of beauty stick them in the Tate Modern with the pickled animals and piles of bricks then not on natural vistas. the reasons there are oil rigs in the sea is because of the huge profits outway the collossal start-up costs and maintenance. wind turbines will not even cover the start-up costs and theres another problem if your supplying 30% you need at least 50% more output to cover for no wind and maintenance which means you could have built Nuclear power stations on existing sites at similair costs. anyone who thinks that the enviromental impact of building and installing tens of thousands of turbines on land or in the sea is going to cause less damage than any other form of industrail intervention is living in cloud cuckoo land Why has Nuclear power got such a stigma is it the relationship with Nuclear weapons, I dont know the figures of people killed by these bombs but I,am sure the common car has killed more people in a year and every year. how many have been killed in Iraq just with common and garden gun I think weve lost all sense of perspective. pollution is just that "Argh but this is green pollution it doesnt count" sorry but in my view you will never catch up with demand because of the expansion of the worlds population and 30% of todays consumption will be 5% by tomorrow and the shortfall will eventually have to be filled with something practical and in the short term it will be Nuclear but in the longterm they may find something completely new. But it wont be wind farms there just a gimick to show everyone that the government are doing something just like sticking fuel tax up for flying. there is no excuse for saying "But lets just do something" when they do that you get things that go horribly wrong,the dangerous dogs act and the gun laws all show the way it goes when you have a Knee-jerk reaction they dont protect anyone. And no sorry I dont know the answer but for me its not fields of Turbines Last edited by 888heaven : 05-Jan-2007 at 14:34. |
#58 | ||||
| ||||
Quote:
Am not sure where you get your facts from but from way back when i was studying all this at Uni Wave power costs 6p/kWh (revised from 9p/kWh) Nuclear costs 6p/kWh - excludes decommissioning costs Wind costs 11p/kWh Hydro- cheap as chips Fossil fuels are no longer an option No one knows what it costs to decommission a nuclear power station as no one has done it. They are left as radioactive tombs for thousands of years, unless we do the right thing and deal with them. But it will cost more to decommission than to will to build. People should be scared of nuclear installations. We built a fast breeder reactor at Dounray. It was an experiment in producing power from a new type of reactor which tool spent nuclear fuel and handily enough turned into plutonium. It didnt work so we built THORP instead. Another idea, so great that no one else in the world has followed suit. The fast breeder was cooled by liquid sodium. Never in the history of man has man succeeded in putting out a fire fueled by liquid sodium. What on earth were we doing? Seriously! No wonder the locals, and the scandanavians were not happy. Power consumption will decrease. The UK Building Regulations are a legal document. They must be complied with. For the next 50 years they will revised so that the energy performance of buildings improves by 27% every 5 years. The first tranche came in last year. It applies to new build and refurb. Homes are also covered by this. Businesses can take advantage of tax breaks and interest free loans to fund energy efficient technology. I know firms who have had there money back in less than 2 years. Its a great business investment for them. This is an EEC directive and is part of our commitments to Kyoto. If everyone signed up we would be off with our knees up! But you cant influence, say the USA, if you are not excercising good practice yourself. A wave barrage the length of the western isles could power most of Scotland. Australia and Denmark generate 20% of their power from wind. Lastly, ask yourself, how would you feel if they wanted to build a nuclear power station where you lived? Last edited by 749er : 05-Jan-2007 at 16:24. |
#59 | ||||
| ||||
Quote:
Will power consumption really decrease? Maybe it will grow at a lower rate, but actually decrease? I find that one doubtful.. The growth in everything electrical is never-ending, new buildings all have fancy HVAC systems which the older ones don't. I'm not convinced UK power consumption will be reduced, and for the developing world it is only going to rise. |
#60 | ||||
| ||||
Quote:
It will decrease.All manufacturers are looking to reduce the consumtion of their goods, changing from a CRT screen to an LCD screen saves about 90%. The building design process is a little complicated. But it involves a mathematical model which determines what the consumption of the building would be pre 2006. You then have a target which at the moment has to be 28% lower than the old building design. All elements of the building are included HVAC, Lighting (my field), fenestration, insulation, domestic hot water etc. if your building does not comply it does not get a completion certificate from building control so no one can use it. Buildings must all be metered and will have an energy label assigned to them in the same way cars and fridges etc. So if you are paying X to lease an A rated building and it performs like a C rated building, then I suspect the lawyers will get involved. But its sfae to say that most of the lighting put into commerial buildings has been absolutely **** in terms of energy efficieny. The technology has always been there to do 100% better in many cases, than has been done in the past. So at least these regs will eliminate the dross from the market place and encourage efficient design Last edited by 749er : 05-Jan-2007 at 16:52. |