One of the worlds largest offshore wind-farms approved for constructio

[Guest]

Walney Extension offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea has been given consent from the government to go ahead, which if built could triple the size of Walney Offshore wind farm, already one of the biggest wind farms in the world.

The wind farm is expected to create 230 new jobs over the four year construction period and around 185 jobs annually during the expected 25 year lifespan.

Once built, the wind farm would generate enough electricity to power over half a million homes.

The decision underlines how the government’s policies have made the UK the best place in the world to invest in offshore wind.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said:

“Another large wind farm is now closer to being built – and each one gives us more home-grown, clean and secure energy supplies.

“This Government has worked tirelessly to rebalance the economy and create more green jobs. This project alone is expected to create 230 new jobs during the construction phase and many more opportunities throughout the UK economy.
“Driving investment in energy has made us the top country in the world for investing in offshore wind.”

The Walney Extension project is one of five offshore wind projects that signed an early Contract for Difference under the new system for low-carbon electricity generation. As well as being the first contracts awarded under the system, they mark a new stage in the growth of the sector, bringing green jobs and growth across the UK and supporting cleaner and more secure energy.

This is just 31 km from my home (Isle of Man) I suppose it will bring new jobs because the local harbor could be an operations and maintenance brace for it. But it has it's down sides two..... e.g. it effects shipping channels etc.... whats your option on offshore power? Link: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/07/massive-660-mw-walney-offshore-wind-farm-extension-approved/

[Switch]

Cool

[Gay Tony]

I haven't actually thought about windmills being offshore but it seems like a good idea....

 

In the northern area of Michigan (United States), windmills have taken over particularly in some areas.

 

From first hand sight windmills use a ton space and take over the entire landscape a bit, just being honest here.

 

But this doesn't seem like a bad idea actually.

Edited November 8, 2014 by mr toasterbutt

[The Harwood Bitcher]

Think in all the dead seagulls because of those blades.

This kind of enviromental vodoo it's hurting gaia and must be stopped.

[Stephan90]

Think in all the dead seagulls because of those blades.

This kind of enviromental vodoo it's hurting gaia and must be stopped.

 

I doubt that's significant compared through the number of birds dying because of power lines, but you can prove me the opposite.

 

I am all for wind- and solarpower. Nuclear power should be forbidden all over the world. Not because I think it was impossible to build safe nuclear power plants, but because:

 

1. Not all countries are trustworthy to use nuclear power in a safe way and if something goes wrong the neighbouring countries can be harmed.

2. You have to store the nuclear waste for millions of years, which is A very expensive and risky and B can fall into terrorists hands

Edited November 8, 2014 by Stephan90

[Raavi]

What a waste of resources. Not producing even a fraction of what nuclear has the potential to. If it wasn't for the popular misconceptions about nuclear energy, we wouldn't be discussing these eyesores.

[Mr. House]

What a waste of resources. Not producing even a fraction of what nuclear has the potential to. If it wasn't for the popular misconceptions about nuclear energy, we wouldn't be discussing these eyesores.

[Guest]

 

What a waste of resources. Not producing even a fraction of what nuclear has the potential to. If it wasn't for the popular misconceptions about nuclear energy, we wouldn't be discussing these eyesores.

 

That says it all really..........

[Stephan90]

No one can tell me that it was impossible for terrorists to steal enough nuclear waste from somewhere on the world to build a primitve atomic bomb.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/04/world/americas/mexico-radioactive-theft/

[universetwisters]

Either way, I don't think terrorists would be motivated enough to take out a wind farm. What's the worst that can happen? A town looses it's power? If that's their goal, the terrorists have pretty low standards.

Edited November 8, 2014 by universetwisters

[Stephan90]

Either way, I don't think terrorists would be motivated enough to take out a wind farm. What's the worst that can happen? A town looses it's power? If that's their goal, the terrorists have pretty low standards.

 

A wind farm is the least likely aim for a terrorist attack unlike a nuclear power plant.

[Killerdude]

I f*cking hate Wind Turbines, My home area is just flooded with the damn things, there are a few hundred of them..

 

 

Also, Nuclear is probably the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy production, Bar any freak accidents everything will go over fine.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Killerdude8

[Gay Tony]

I f*cking hate Wind Turbines, My home area is just flooded with the damn things, there are a few hundred of them..

 

I can confirm this as well.

[Mr. House]

I f*cking hate Wind Turbines, My home area is just flooded with the damn things, there are a few hundred of them..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

[Guest]

I f*cking hate Wind Turbines, My home area is just flooded with the damn things, there are a few hundred of them..

 

 

Also, Nuclear is probably the safest, cleanest and efficient form of energy production, Bar any freak accidents everything will go over fine.

I live near a nuclear plane about 30 miles or so..... and the water that is uses to cool the reactors come out of the plant radio active.... and leeks out into the sea...... so i think that nuclear power is a bad idea.... as you can see hear the green area is the radio active waste water and it goes right over that island where i live....but its not raido active enough to be harmful to humans.... which is good and it sin the process of decommissioning.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Guest

[make total destroy]

so greeen

much sustuinable

wow

[Guest]

so greeen

much sustuinable

wow

its not as bad as it looks (: don't worry

[Killerdude]

 

I f*cking hate Wind Turbines, My home area is just flooded with the damn things, there are a few hundred of them..

 

 

Also, Nuclear is probably the safest, cleanest and efficient form of energy production, Bar any freak accidents everything will go over fine.

I live near a nuclear plane about 30 miles or so..... and the water that is uses to cool the reactors come out of the plant radio active.... and leeks out into the sea...... so i think that nuclear power is a bad idea.... as you can see hear the green area is the radio active waste water and it goes right over that island where i live....but its not raido active enough to be harmful to humans.... which is good and it sin the process of decommissioning.

 

Short term radioactivity, Not that big a deal, Not nearly as bad as coal plants, Spewing out all that horrible smoke.

[Guest]

Wind-farms do have there downsides though....

[Guest]

I think this is next though....

[Gay Tony]

I think this is next though....

 

-snip-

 

Only one problem.....

 

 

Sorry I just had to.

[universetwisters]

 

Either way, I don't think terrorists would be motivated enough to take out a wind farm. What's the worst that can happen? A town looses it's power? If that's their goal, the terrorists have pretty low standards.

 

A wind farm is the least likely aim for a terrorist attack unlike a nuclear power plant.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Rah rah up the wind power on my end.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Hmm...so how many birds is this gonna kill?

[sivispacem]

No one can tell me that it was impossible for terrorists to steal enough nuclear waste from somewhere on the world to build a primitve atomic bomb.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/04/world/americas/mexico-radioactive-theft/

I can.

 

To make a bomb, you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium. The conventional nuclear fuel cycle produces neither in usable quantities. Simply put, you can't build a fission device- the basis of all nuclear weapons- from waste or low enriched fissile material.

[El Dildo]

this is exactly why the Iranian's and the North Korean's can threaten us with rhetoric about a nuke, but they can't deliver an actual nuke.

enriching uranium is not easy and it's not physically possible to just 'dust up' some 'nuclear waste' and build a 'primitive atomic bomb'

 

there's no such thing.

there's such thing as 'dirty bomb' but this is NOT a nuke.

[t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m]

But how do they float and stay up like that?

[mr quick]

 

No one can tell me that it was impossible for terrorists to steal enough nuclear waste from somewhere on the world to build a primitve atomic bomb.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/04/world/americas/mexico-radioactive-theft/

I can.

 

To make a bomb, you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium. The conventional nuclear fuel cycle produces neither in usable quantities. Simply put, you can't build a fission device- the basis of all nuclear weapons- from waste or low enriched fissile material.

 

What the f*ck?! do you know literally everything on earth?

[Stephan90]

 

No one can tell me that it was impossible for terrorists to steal enough nuclear waste from somewhere on the world to build a primitve atomic bomb.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/04/world/americas/mexico-radioactive-theft/

I can.

 

To make a bomb, you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium. The conventional nuclear fuel cycle produces neither in usable quantities. Simply put, you can't build a fission device- the basis of all nuclear weapons- from waste or low enriched fissile material.

 

 

Ok if they can't do that, they can still build a dirty bomb. There have been numerous thefts of nuclear material that are known.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_terrorism#cite_note-harvard2010-24

 

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/all-stocks-of-weapons-usable-material-eng.pdf

 

"There have been 18 incidences of theft or loss of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium confirmed by the IAEA"

 

Terrorists could detonate a dirty bomb over a big city like New York. Actually I am surprised that there were "so few" terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere over the course of the last years.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Stephan90

[sivispacem]

 

 

No one can tell me that it was impossible for terrorists to steal enough nuclear waste from somewhere on the world to build a primitve atomic bomb.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/04/world/americas/mexico-radioactive-theft/

I can.

 

To make a bomb, you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium. The conventional nuclear fuel cycle produces neither in usable quantities. Simply put, you can't build a fission device- the basis of all nuclear weapons- from waste or low enriched fissile material.

 

Ok if they can't do that, they can still build a dirty bomb. There have been numerous thefts of nuclear material that are known.

 

And zero dirty bombs used operationally in all of history. Why?

 

Far and away the largest issue with them is that they don't really work. Dispersing isotopes that emit enough high level beta and particularly gamma radiation to actually be damaging, over a wide enough area to constitute an attack, is incredibly difficult by conventional explosive means. Radiological weapons are hilariously impractical for a number of reasons; first of which being the fact you can't selectively target radiation; you can't (practically) simultaneously shield the individuals building the bomb from lethal doses of radiation and actually have a device capable of emitting lethal doses of radiation to individuals targeted by it using most solid gamma-emitting isotopes, and whilst an aerosolised weapon would be far more dangerous, that similarly requires a level of technical understanding (not to mention the advanced equipment) far beyond that which most terrorist organisations are capable.

 

"Dirty bombs" exist solely in fiction; they serve no practical purpose in the arsenal of a terrorist organisation that isn't better served by high explosives, toxins or biological agents.

 

 

-

 

 

Anyway, let's return to the topic at hand.

[Stephan90]

just two points

 

1 I don't think terrorists would care if they die themselves from the radiation

2 The IS has enough money to finance that. I read an article that they have almost two billion Euro

 

back to topic, nuclear energy is not 100% safe in everyone's hands and I don't see why I must live with that risk. Of course you can't close all nuclear plants over night. But there should be at least political attempts on an international level to come to an agreement to ban nuclear energy worldwide. Those who defend the use of nuclear power should be denounced as irresponsible.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Stephan90