On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:49:03 +0100, wrote
(in article .com):

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):
Andy Hall wrote:

windmills...

The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature.

yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets
and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out.

Exactly, so no need to make it any worse than it already is.

the need for more gen capacity is obvious. As is the fact that some of
it may be windgen.



Of course. It may be. I think that there a lot more disadvantages than
advantages (and I do count visual effect as an important disadvantage) of
industrial windmills for electricity generation. The level of deployment
required to make it worth bothering, is vast and set against the delivery
potential of nuclear, it isn't worth spending time and money on it.



we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that
dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it.

If that were true, nobody would be proposing building industrial windmills
in
some of the best natural environment in the country.

illogic

Not at all. I think it's completely logical not to want to see large areas
of land wrecked by industrial eyesores.




Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie
deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost.


The answer to that one is quite simple and is covered by nuclear generation.

how can the important pros and cons of each gen technology be covered
by nuclear generation?


These are very well known and has already been said several times, if a major
objective is to substantially reduce carbon emission, energy supply has to be
met by something with enough capacity, scalability and viability. taking a
punt on energy consumption reduction, is a hell of a risk and is not likely
to be realised in practice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the
shortfall needs to be met with nuclear generation.