On 12 Sep, 22:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Andy Champ wrote:

On 12/09/2010 15:06, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:55:45 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
*wrote this:-

Personally I don't find the odd turbine or two unnattractive. *I have
doubts over the numbers required through - the UK peak consumption is
something over 60GW, which means (surely I've got this wrong?) 30,000 of
those 2MW units, each of which is as tall as St Paul's Cathedral.

Your "argument" is based on generating all electricity from wind
turbines. A straw man.

What large scale non-fossil technologies are available?

Nuclear is the only one.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Problem is nuclear is fossil fueled , Uranium isn`t mined in the UK,
Australia, South Africa and er, possibly soon, Afghanistan...

Fast breeders and fusion that works are all so much science fiction at
moment, but dream big

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465532a.html

Ok just presuurisd water, uderstood technology , power stations
standardised `to the wallpaper and the carpets` , wrong European
Presurised Reactor, massively overbudget and overtime in two locations
and no one is ordering any mo

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9521db40-b...44feab49a.html

Windmill, wave and solar are all non fossil and look good against this
sort of competition ;-)

Cheers
Adam