Energy - More Coal?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7169105.stm


What did we all think about one of this week's biggest environmental news stories?

I think it's another government stitch up to get us all to support nuclear. I doubt they have any intention of letting anyone build another coal power station

I am only half way through reading the link but had to say, I hate E.ON (and not just because I work for British Gas ). And I though E.On's main advertising campaign was that they were all for green energy?

Quote :

But Ben Stuart, the communications director of Greenpeace, accused E.ON of being "the largest polluter in Britain and being reckless in building the power station".

Haha, guess that puts a stop to their moto of 'Leading the way'

I think our Government is intent on following France's example of going nuclear and not being held to ransom on the gas markets like we are at the moment.

WormThatTurned wrote:

I think our Government is intent on following France's example of going nuclear and not being held to ransom on the gas markets like we are at the moment.

How would that help? I'm not all that read up on this topic, however having Nuclear power stations wouldn't mean I would get rid of my combi boiler and gas cooker......

Didnt say I approved Drew, thats how I see it. Look at the 2006 Energy review which claimed we should be going nuclear. Gas prices have increased dramatically and nuclear would 'seem' a viable solution for our energy needs.

do you mean Wormy that you think we will switch to electric and use nuclear to generate that electricity, instead of sticking with gas? I'm not sure that will happen in our lifetimes, assuming new sources of gas are found.


I think the nuclear argument is about the demand problem of electricity in that it's a technology that's here and now, and there are supplies of the resources required in the process - more than we can reasonable ever require.


I dont think it is about the gas markets, as thats a 'relatively' short term thing, and power stations take years to commission and decommission.

With regards to the decision at hand, personally while neither solution is perfect, and despite Eon's convincing presentations I think the coal burning power station might be a backward step, as the technology to do whatever they are proposing with the carbon to bury it (and I forget the name of it) isn't a technology that currently exists (so the public might get convinced by an argument on the environment and safety that might not happen)

On the other hand, Nuclear, well no one wants that in the back yard do they, because of the waste problem with that too..!

I still think allowing it to happen with coal is a mistake, myself. We'll be sitting here in 2050 wondering what idiot agreed it.

I think Wormy has a point. The Russians are buying up all the gas supply chains and could hold western europe to ransom if they restrict the supply. We saw them do it to (? was it) the Ukraine last year when they cut the supply.

It makes me nervous too. I wouldn't trust our future energy supplies to Putin and his cronies.

I think Wormy has a point. The Russians are buying up all the gas supply chains and could hold western europe to ransom if they restrict the supply. We saw them do it to (? was it) the Ukraine last year when they cut the supply.

It makes me nervous too. I wouldn't trust our future energy supplies to Putin and his cronies.

WormThatTurned wrote:

Didnt say I approved Drew, thats how I see it. Look at the 2006 Energy review which claimed we should be going nuclear. Gas prices have increased dramatically and nuclear would 'seem' a viable solution for our energy needs.

Oh I get that gas prices are rising, I just honestly am not clued up enough to know the ins and outs of it. Or how this particular market works overall.

So, what I am asking, is that how does it make a difference to gas consumers, buy building nuclear power stations? Since they produce electricity, I am not sure where the lower dependency on gas comes in.

Is gas used currently to produce electricity?

The national grid is powered by a combination of sources; Gas (40 odd percent and rising) being one of them. If the Nuclear avenue was followed there would be less reliance on the importation of the highly volatile Gas markets. Im still not sure about Nuclear though. I know we have to meet our energy needs somehow but id be loathe to follow the French example, nearly wholly nuclear.

drewboy wrote:

WormThatTurned wrote:

Didnt say I approved Drew, thats how I see it. Look at the 2006 Energy review which claimed we should be going nuclear. Gas prices have increased dramatically and nuclear would 'seem' a viable solution for our energy needs.

Oh I get that gas prices are rising, I just honestly am not clued up enough to know the ins and outs of it. Or how this particular market works overall.

So, what I am asking, is that how does it make a difference to gas consumers, buy building nuclear power stations? Since they produce electricity, I am not sure where the lower dependency on gas comes in.

Is gas used currently to produce electricity?

Gas power stations can product electricity, but nuclear produces electricity (but not gas...).

Nuclear can only cause a shift away from gas if consumers/corporations swith to electricity because they no longer wish to use gas (cost reasons)...or gas is running out (not likely in our lifetime)

Using gas to make electricity was always a dumb idea. We didn't value the gas when we had a lot of it.

WormThatTurned wrote:

The national grid is powered by a combination of sources; Gas (40 odd percent and rising) being one of them. If the Nuclear avenue was followed there would be less reliance on the importation of the highly volatile Gas markets. Im still not sure about Nuclear though. I know we have to meet our energy needs somehow but id be loathe to follow the French example, nearly wholly nuclear.

AH, I didn't realise we did that.