That nuclear power is carbon free and miss understood

[Greatwhiteworld]

Nuclear power is very efficient, very safe and carbon free. Accidents like Chernobyl won't happen again as that type of reactor isn't widely used

New reactors are being built that use radioactive waste from older reactors, or use nuclear weapons as fuel.

The UK should be building more as part of moving away from fossil fuel.

1. That's why you have a smart grid - and everything needs back up eg for when nuclear power stations are offline
2. The rspb supports wind power as the biggest threat to birds is climate change
3. The majority of people don't mind the look of them, some people even like them
4. Onshore wind is the cheapest source of new power as per this recent government study www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2016/11/9/ok8ri8jeg6cjz49fib85oomd01po52 - not sure where you've got your 3x figure from
5. It's not funded through tax, it's a charge on consumer bills. About £20 a year on the average bill.

I should add, for the sake of balance, offshore wind is more than gas, but nowhere near double, let alone treble the cost

They kill birds (lots of them) and are visually polluting

How many birds will die from climate change?

Visually polluting? Compared to a coal power station? There are people who have had to have coal power stations and all the pollution they produce on their door step for decade.

But I guess that coal power stations are unlikely to be built in areas where wind turbines are so that's not people's problem.

No power installation is a thing of beauty - turbine,solar panel,nuclear reactor, tidal barrage, coal station, whatever. Except possibly the Ironbridge towers which are under threat.

Function, not form. This is science, not fashion!

Nuclear power stations do go offline - but the atom is rather more reliable than the wind.

Follow gridwatch for a while.

No power installation is a thing of beauty

I like electric mountain. Hidden in a mountain.

www.electricmountain.co.uk/

Such a simple idea. Water shoots down pipe. Spins turbine. Use cheap power in night time to send back up mountain.

Repeat as needed.

Piping in energy from the Sahara, fucking heard it all now, lol. Idiocy.

www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/#4e400ff8d440

by Mehran Moalem, PhD, UC Berkeley, Professor, Expert on Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Fuel Cycle

In other words, its a Nuclear expert who think the Sahara idea is a good one..

Oh yes, load factor for nuclear is far better than for wind, but you still need backup for when they do go offline as it suddenly takes out a massive chunk of grid, whereas wind variability tends to be more predictable and happen over a varied period - you don't lose 3Gw in an instant.
Ultimately as someone who went on to be an energy SpAd said "cheap, reliable, low carbon. pick two out of three."