TopGun

It doesn't matter whether you do or don't believe in manmade climate change. Fossil fuels are finite and we don't want to over rely on imports of fuel/energy from other countries. I am sure that even you can see the sense in security of supply Dune! Renewables make up part of a sensible mix.

Not just nuke stations. The new 900MW CCGT that has just opened at Langage outside Plymouth has a fair complement of former Naval engineers and artificers employed there. Centrica was keen to take on people with such skills and went out of their way to attract former Naval personnel.

I'm afraid that's a myth though. The largest onshore turbines now have installed capacity of 3MW. Even at something less than 33% efficiency a single turbine will generate enough power on average throughout the year to power 2,000 homes all of the time for all of their needs. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that the only reason turbines are constructed is because the developers get subsidies also. The ROC subsidies are paid to the developer on sale of the electricity to electricity suppliers who have to buy a minimum level of renewable power or pay a fine. The purpose for this is rightly to encourage investment in renewables that stimulates the market, creates many thousands of jobs in manufacture and maintenance and to obviously generate low carbon power. It makes no difference if the Tories decide to build more nukes than Labour has planned because the first one will not be operational until 2025. In point of fact, Labour is encouraging enough nuke construction for our needs anyway, albeit belatedly. The first one will likely be at Hinckley Point by EDF but many of you will know the huge fuss that is going on about new pylons in Somerset to link the nuke with the Grid. That will take years to resolve on its own and the Tories are promising to "return democracy to local people" which will in fact delay the process even more. The same reasons will delay the Severn Barrage that Mikey mentions and it is now more likely in any case that a multi-giant lagoon system will be employed which captures the incoming tide and then releases the water to turn turbines afterwards. Compared with a barrage it will be less visually intrusive, have less damaging effects on the Severn's ecology and will be cheaper. However it is estimated that a barrage could generate 6% of the UK's electricity and a lagoon system would be less. But it is worth remembering that the coal-fired Drax Power Station, the largest in Western Europe at 4,000MW, already generates 7% of the UK's electricity on average - it is of course also Western Europe's largest single CO2 emitter at over 22million tonnes annually and burns over 30,000 tonnes of coal every day. Plenty of choices, plenty of complications too. Drax Power Station - 4,000MW, 7% of UK electricty generation, 22m tonnes of CO2, 30 steam turbines fuelled by 30,000 tonnes of coal every day

Not really comparable though is it?

I work in energy generation development. My clients include Drax, ScottishPower, NPower, Covanta, ESBI, Intergen and Infinergy among others. Between them they build and operate wind farms, coal fired power stations, CCGTs, biomass and energy from waste plants. SP also has nuke aspirations. The points made above about wind are the usual tosh. It doesn't matter if wind is 25-30% efficient as the fuel is free and non-polluting. It's fine to have a spinning reserve of conventional power to back wind power up. It is still less polluting and less costly and fewer finite fossil fuels are used. A lot of people don't get that and just bang on about turbines not turning. It also needs to be pointed out that conventional gas and coal power stations are less than 50% efficient also with most of the fuel being wasted as excess heat (and CO2). Offshore wind will provide huge amounts of energy in the future also. Nukes are fine but they are very expensive to build, take a long time to plan and build (there will no way be a new one operational before 2025) and there remains a nuke waste problem. They are not a magic bullet as Smirking Saints suggests. Many of the French ones don't work as they should as those situated inland don't get enough water to cool properly during the summer. Nukes are also quite inflexible in an energy mix as they take a week to start up from cold. A CCGT will fire up to full capacity in a matter of minutes. We have a projected energy gap as older polluting power stations are turned off under the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) from 2015. The way to deal with this is by getting short term power on - wind farms and CCGTs (not gas in reserve). Longer term we will have a spread of nuclear, wind and gas as first main options with possibility of clean coal (CCS) and other alternatives now under development such as tidal. Incidentally, I fail to see how a Con-LD pact or Lab-LD will work with energy as Con and Lab are pro-nuke and LDs anti-nuke.

Look at SRS's opening post on this thread!

What is interesting is that under a Labour vote that is about as low as it can go they have a chance of hanging on and a Conservative vote that will go no higher cannot secure a majority government. This gives rise to two conclusions: 1. The electoral system is possibly unfair and in need of overhaul. 2. The Conservatives who claim to be the party of change are not offering enough change to get beyond mid-30%. They are still not reaching out enough. This is partly because they refuse to dump "traditional" Tory policies that are unpopular elsewhere - fox hunting, reform of the Lords, abolition of hereditary peers etc. Both points need to be addressed if the Tories are to gain extra popular votes in today's Britain.

Clegg has the opportunity to change the fortunes of the LDs forever by taking a PR bribe. He'd be mad not to do that. The Tories have more to lose by offering PR than Labour.

You are spot on. Clegg has a problem. Probably only solved by taking a PR bribe from either Lab or Con for the short term. Lab have offered the bribe, will the Conservatives follow suit?

The promise of PR is the required bribe.

That is not what he said at all.

Heh. I didn't. I said all along their vote would fall apart. Clever me.

:) So much for those on this site who predicted the BNP and UKIP were poised to make a breakthrough!

Lol. And I have a client meeting at 9 so have to get some zeds now also. Night.

You know I always said the LD vote would fall apart come polling day and that is what is happening. Clegg was a one-trick pony. I said that from a position of knowledge. The question is where the votes go. I think DC will just about scrape through 326.

Broxtowe is important for a number of close seats about there. Not sure what that says in the esat midlands yet.

I thought the Tories would take Eastleigh though.

Have you ever been to Harrogate? A usual Tory farming seat in Yorkshire where they drive range rovers... no real issue there again.

Basildon was always a Tory seat so no surprise there.

Someone has just told me both Test and Itchen are recounts. If that is the case Lab are doomed tonight. Might be rubbish of course...

Blimey. Wales is kicking off. Lembit is out. Not sure I care too much about that to be frank. But two quick Tory wins in Wales. That's worrying for Lab. Plus their loss to PC in Arfon earlier.

It was worse reading it :-)

It's clear that the vote will be a higher turnout than usual and I think social media such as FB has had an effect in galvanising people. A true change. It's also clear from places like Manchester Withington and Sheffield Hallam that a load of students got late inspiration to vote from the pub, so it is a bit their fault that they can't get in by 10pm. But it also means that the 24/7 society indicates that in the future polling booths should be open until at least 11pm.

Tory salt.

Did you vote for the Yellow Merrells Kippy?