Really cold day today and wind and solar are able to provide only 8% of the total power we are using.

I couldn’t agree more, but try telling Milliband that.

We need to find better ways of storing energy.
If we want nuclear power we should put our money where our mouth is and build them ourselves, not pay for a foreign company to build them, who will then rip us off for generations to come.

Renewables give on average 40% of our total energy use. That is almost entirely wind and solar.

In contrast Norway gets nearly 99%of its energy from renewables. It has recently gone all electric. However their energy is largely from hydro, which I assume is more dependable than either solar or wind.

I wouldn’t be so quick at dismissing renewables, but I think nuclear must always be seen as a fall back unless technology can provide the means for it to be unnecessary.

Sounds like we should have gone hydro in that case.

Why didnt we?

Ilovecheese

We need to find better ways of storing energy.
If we want nuclear power we should put our money where our mouth is and build them ourselves, not pay for a foreign company to build them, who will then rip us off for generations to come.

They (foreign owned companies) are building huge battery storage areas in Scotland. This one's on a coal mine (what could possibly go wrong?) which is preferable to residential areas (last one by a housing estate that caught fire face off horrendous fumes)
No doubt they'll be all over the country, that's green energy after all.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd18q248jo.amp

Norway has over 900 Hydro-electric plants providing just over 90% of the countries power.

They have a totally different landscape to the UK, many of these plants are in the Fjords.

The UK has only got the sea for hydro power really, and it’s a busy with a. multitude of shipping lanes.

Why have we never used the sea? wave power? It’s always there.

Electricity cannot be stored in large quantities so it’s got to be gas, storage has always been neglected, it up to the government to fund the provision of that.

The cheapest energy is nuclear once it’s built running cost is low, the energy used in construction is recovered very quickly. France has a high dependency and runs most of our nuclear power as a bonus.

Gingster

Why have we never used the sea? wave power? It’s always there.

It's far more expensive than the alternatives, but l think the Fins may be coming to help us. I also like whales so much l think we should leave their habitat alone. Of course there's no "proof' wave power causes whales to strand but also there's no "proof" it doesn't.

fancythat

Sounds like we should have gone hydro in that case.

Why didnt we?

There’s nowhere really in the UK that has the water and the fall to generate that kind of power (apart from a couple of small stations).

Also 90% of the power Norway needs is much, much less than we need. Only 5.5 million people to supply!

Only 5.5 million people to supply!

Exactly, Lathryrus3!

Gingster

Why have we never used the sea? wave power? It’s always there.

You may be thinking of tidal power not wave power. Waves vary just like wind does. In fact closely linked with wind.

You need the tide to ebb and flow with force in a restricted area in order to generate large quantities of power. As in the fall you need in hydro.

We just haven’t got the mountains or the coastline for anything significant.

Lathyrus3

fancythat

Sounds like we should have gone hydro in that case.

Why didnt we?

There’s nowhere really in the UK that has the water and the fall to generate that kind of power (apart from a couple of small stations).

Also 90% of the power Norway needs is much, much less than we need. Only 5.5 million people to supply!

That’s not entirely true. It’s estimated that the Severn Barrage could generate 5% of the total electricity demand for the UK, and there are a number of other potential schemes. Currently it’s only 1.3% of the total used, but there’s significant potential for growth.

GrannyGravy13

Norway has over 900 Hydro-electric plants providing just over 90% of the countries power.

They have a totally different landscape to the UK, many of these plants are in the Fjords.

The UK has only got the sea for hydro power really, and it’s a busy with a. multitude of shipping lanes.

This is true.

Norway is an incredible country, efficient, clean and very wealthy!

Our son lives there and enjoys an enviable lifestyle.

The majority of their wealth however comes from oil and gas.

The Severn is the only one I’m aware of that has the power needed and there are massive environmental implications. There was a was a study of The Wash but as far as I’m aware the findings were negative.

I was really reply to fancythats comment about hydro. I don’t know anywhere in England that has the fall of water needed to build a hydro station.

OldFrill

Gingster

Why have we never used the sea? wave power? It’s always there.

It's far more expensive than the alternatives, but l think the Fins may be coming to help us. I also like whales so much l think we should leave their habitat alone. Of course there's no "proof' wave power causes whales to strand but also there's no "proof" it doesn't.

I’m all for more environmentally ways of providing energy but I share your concern about the creatures living in our seas. I worry about how our local dolphins might be affected. Then again, global warming is going to affect them, too. What a mess we’re making of our planet.

There were plans, possible still active to build a thread of tidal lagoons down the South Wales coast www.swansea.gov.uk/NewImages?lang=en that, with the Severn barrage could have provided 20% or more of the power we needed.

I appreciate the need to protect wild life, but if we do not reduce the emissions the world is producing the planet will become unlivable in and it will be curtains for all wildlife and humans, so I think the advantages of the Severn barrage are far stronger than the relative minor disruption to some seabirds.

The problem with sea power, and work conrinues on it, is that firstly sea conditions are immensely variable from little swell and no waves to storm force conditions with a swell of many meters and waves upto 5 metres or more, and it is very difficult to design equipment that can cope with this immense variability of conditions. Secondly seawater is exceedingly corrosive and designing equipment with moving parts that does not need to be replaced every few months also presents problems.

whitewave yes, we do produce 40% of our power, over a year from renewables, but the problem is that it is weather dependent and on days like today, a cold day when electricity demand is high, it is providing less than 10 per cent of demand. If we are to stand down all our gas power stations we need to have emission free power 24/365 that can always meet peak demand. The only way we can do this is for the foreseeable future is with nuclear power.

Casdon

Lathyrus3

fancythat

Sounds like we should have gone hydro in that case.

Why didnt we?

There’s nowhere really in the UK that has the water and the fall to generate that kind of power (apart from a couple of small stations).

Also 90% of the power Norway needs is much, much less than we need. Only 5.5 million people to supply!

That’s not entirely true. It’s estimated that the Severn Barrage could generate 5% of the total electricity demand for the UK, and there are a number of other potential schemes. Currently it’s only 1.3% of the total used, but there’s significant potential for growth.

There are several Hydro Power Schemes in Scotland and have been since the early 20th century. Currently around 12% of Scotlands electricity is made.

Ah, that’s interesting. I looked it up - hope you don’t mind, I was interested.

There seems to be a push for lots of small local schemes. Have I got it right? Good for Scotland!

There are a lot of hydropower stations in Wales too, we get plenty of rain to serve them. Generating power locally is something that a lot of communities are interested in, so there’s a bidding process for schemes.

fancythat

Sounds like we should have gone hydro in that case.

Why didnt we?

Not enough waterfalls perhaps?

There are contra-indictions to hydro power too, such as the impact it has on wildlife and the ecology.

Casdon

Lathyrus3

fancythat

Sounds like we should have gone hydro in that case.

Why didnt we?

There’s nowhere really in the UK that has the water and the fall to generate that kind of power (apart from a couple of small stations).

Also 90% of the power Norway needs is much, much less than we need. Only 5.5 million people to supply!

That’s not entirely true. It’s estimated that the Severn Barrage could generate 5% of the total electricity demand for the UK, and there are a number of other potential schemes. Currently it’s only 1.3% of the total used, but there’s significant potential for growth.

The Severn Barrage could be catastrophic for wildlife and the eco system too.

But no, I don't know the answer.

There was a feature on the news the other day about a housebuilder, I think in Gloucestershire, who is putting solar panels on the roofs of all the houses they build.

Perhaps this should become more widespread, and on public buildings too.

I presume it’s as Allira says.
I could possibly generate enough power to run my house if I had little wind turbine and harvested all the rain hitting my roof here in the hills, but a solar panel system would be a waste of time for 9 months a year.