Bazdavies79

I didn't mention clean up and decommissioning because I looked at those links quickly and saw them included. But lest talk about it then, BP power have come up with their figures, who are BP power? who are nuclear fissionary? Are they unbiased? I won't link to any sites as I'm finding it difficult to hang my argument on most of the info out there due to impartiality concerns. Instead of looking at what BP and Nuclear fissionary tell us will happen, lets look at what has happened. Nuclear 'incidents' Also decommissioning costs... Trawsfynydd cost- 73bnThe trawsfynydd 'clean-up' (I say loosely) should be completed in around 2080. It hasn't produced a watt of power since 1991. And from wiki... On tidal, not all systems require the destructive construction of a barrage. However in some instances the positives may outweigh the negatives, if each case is looked at on it's own merits.

Given - 4 Lichaj - 5 Collins - 5 Baker - 3 Warnock - 4 Gardner - 3 Ireland - 5 Bannan - 3 Gabby - 4 Weinman - 4 Albrighton - 6 MOTM Heskey - 3 Another week of incredibly low scoring from me and probably a first as a 70th min sub gets my MOTM, for at least trying something positive. No organisation at the back, seemingly no thought out method of attack, same old mistakes time and time and time and time again. The manager has no idea how to fix this does he, let's face it. He's out of his depth. Edit - Herd 3. Forgot he was on, says it all.

Any defenders on the pitch?

It wouldn't be if we were getting at them. Good idea, the applause. Stopping the game is going way too far lol.

I looked quickly at the first link, a study commissioned by PB Power, and the costs considered were all fairly up front costs. Looking more wholisticaly at it, at environmental and human health costs, and other costs associated with the exploration and control of ever more precious finate fuels might give a more accurate picture.

GK - Keith Moon CB - Jack Bruce LW - Jimi Hendrix RW - Jimmy Page ST - Jim Morrison Subs John Bonham John Entwistle Eric Clapton Rory Gallagher Keith Relf So so many people I like I've had to leave off, even with the sub bench cheat.

When I said more energy wouldn't be needed I was of course referring to Dinorwig in particular. I couldn't work out why on earth you thought more energy would be needed to keep it running with renewables. You were talking about if we built more similar pump storage, my error. Yes indeed with more Hydro, more energy would be needed, but only during low demand times. I don't think capacity is an insurmountable logistical problem. The real problem is having a network flexible to demand which did not suffer at the whim of mother nature. On the economic issue, Nuclear AND fossil fuels are hugely expensive. When ALL things are considered, I'm not so sure renewables come off so badly in the viability case.

Renewable wouldn't be capable of providing enough power for more that just one Hydro Station at very low demand times, in the early hours of the morning? Well that's one opinion in the debate. Of course the economic case for renewables is becoming more favourable, same cant be said for non renewables including nuclear.

You're making out that doesn't have to happen now. When demand spikes Dinorwig starts up, water is pumped back up between 3 and 5am. Dinorwig is not used for peak hours, just spikes. No extra energy would have to be produced than is now to have that facility. That's a real world example already in use, of a green way of coping with spikes. At peak hours extra energy could be produced by bringing more renewable sources online. Obviously renewables are not as flexible as fossil fuel power stations, if the wind aint blowing you aint got the energy. So, the question is, is it logistically possible to run a grid purely on renewables? Many experts think so, many don't. I'm not convinced by either argument, but even I'm less convinced by the nuclear argument. I think it's the politicians easy, lazy way out. It's passing a problem on to the next lot, after they're dead and gone.

Get well soon Stan.

And what is wrong with that? Is this an insurmountable problem? Not necessarily if our continental neighbours embraced renewable. That CEPOS report has been criticised as it was reputedly paid for by the american oil lobby. Wind energy is subsidised there, rather that than Nuclear. On Dinorwig again. It can respond to demand quickly, it's a clean and flexible generator. The energy it uses is taken when demand is low. It puts in when demand spikes. It would be used in exactly the same way it is now. More energy would not be needed, but the challenge is keeping the supply as flexible.

I understand, that nuclear is not cheaper than renewable, if you take into account all factors, and getting more expensive. So I cautiously disagree. I also disagree on the storage issue, it's difficult and expensive from a technical and planning perspective. Yes, as previously stated, Dinorwig has a net loss, but is good for spikes. It's about 75% efficient, and pumps water at low demand between 3 and 5am. I don't understand the point about needing to generate more energy? Renewable should happen, Denmark are aiming for 55% wind energy, they're a country with much lower wind resources than the UK. The problem getting a constant reliable supply. That can be tackled by adopting multiple systems.

It's always the unforeseen though, 'oh we didn't plan for that event'. The Don: Cheaper? Really? Construction, operating, management, decommissioning and waste management costs are very high with nuclear. Clean? If you know how to bury the waste somewhere safe that will remain intact for thousands of years. Where and how is the question. Tidal barriers can damage Eco systems, but tidal generators don't. Wave energy is fine. It's very hard to cut through the bullshit and find the truth regarding wind turbines, they are certainly not a one hit answer but part of a package of renewable's working together. Dinorwig was given as an example of how spike demands can be overcome in a green way. I'm well aware of the energy costs of pumping the water back up.

Ashley Young and later on James Milner. I thought they were great signings and I was positive we'd bagged players who could bring us glory.

Rephrasing the same thing?? OK elaboration. And Nuclear is what? Cheap and clean? I don't think so. Spiking demand, how about more hydro electric stations like Dinorwic? A combination of wind, solar, tidal, in conjunction with energy saving measures, is better than nuclear. And here we get into the 'it's not possible, it is possible' tit for tat, where it's very difficult to find reliable info to back up each opposing view. But Nuclear is NOT clean or safe. The plant itself is always as safe houses until it **** up, then it's 'oh we didn't foresee that happening'. Is Fukushima currently earthquake and tsunami proof? It blatantly never was and it certainly is not now.

Such as a combination of renewables, in this country at least.

There are viable alternatives to Nuclear though.

Aww, there was me all fretting n'all. Some things just didn't go to plan, ahh well, not to worry.

Nuclear, it's safe you know.

Ah, OK, thanks, and agreed. BIAD x2

MUST WATCH PUBLIC INFORMATION FILMS. and... 2. Beware homosexuals! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

What does BIAD mean?

As I stated in the Ireland thread, my MOTM. His threat was our only threat.

I bet any money at HT in the Arsenal dressing room the only Villa player they spent any time talking about was Albrighton. His final balls were awful, but he was making the runs, and getting into the danger areas, they had to stop that, nobody else was any threat at all.

Was he or wasn't he creative then? What are you saying?