[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

it does sound like it's getting worse, not better.

i wonder how long the workers can stay there - assuming the radiation on site is increasing...?

buzz-lightyear, do you have a link to the american expert, sounds interesting.

The real problem is that no one actually knows for certain what the outcomes are or for that matter the risks, this situation is still unravelling and is not even close to being over. For example there is good evidence to suggest that things such as genetic abnormalities due to radiation exposure might take several generations to manifest, however the reality is that no one actually knows until after it happens. wehn this plabnt and all subsequent plants were built we were assured they were safe. They self evidently are not.

Thereby hangs the tail.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor ]Grauniad[/url]

I think TJ posted it first

And the nuclear apologists continue. Gonfishin - plutonium has no real safe level

Completely and utterly wrong. [b]NOTHING[/b] has no minimum safe level - in particular, radiation is one of those things where the effect below a certain threshold is not linear, basically, it just falls off. So the risk from [u]radiation[/u] from Pu definitely has a safe level, even if it is very low. If it didn't, presumably the tens of thousands of people who have been near some of it through either civilan or military nuclear industries must all be dead 🙄

I appreciate Pu is highly chemotoxic, but then so are a million and one other man-made chemicals - better get your knickers in a twist about us making things.

The bit you STILL don't get TJ, be it from being deliberately obtuse to fit your persona on STW, or you genuinely can't conceive the implications is this:

So far, how many people were killed directly as a result of the quake?
So far, how many people were killed directly as a result of the Tsunami?
How many were killed due to the failure of power and infrastructure after those events?
How many have been killed by the nuclear disaster?
How many will be killed because lof the nuclear disaster?
How many are killed each year due to the coal industry?

Last question's almost the most serious of those. If we as a planet just stop using nuclear power, what do you suppose will happen? Will we be content with no electricity, will we magically develop large-scale renewables? Or, will we use another proven technology - coal?

Of course, you'll probably just half-answer these in some disparaging condescending manner. But then that's your perogative - disappointing how someone who is obviously as intelligent as you are can be so ignorant and blinkered at times.

it's probably already been mentioned, but what about Thorium reactors?

Thorium is much safer than plutonium / uranium and is a heck of a lot more plentiful.

they're still in the 'development' stage aren't they?

i am worried that we (as a species) will turn our backs on all forms of energy production simply because they have the word 'nuclear' in the title - no matter how intrinsically safe the process may be.

thorium reactors? - No Nukes! - Down With This Sort Of Thing!

nuclear fusion? - No Nukes!

etc.

True. The waste product isn't much use for the weapons industry which is probably why they haven't progressed very far...

zokes - I completely understand your point. its you who are being deliberately obtuse perhaps

My point very simply is that what the nuclear apologists on this thread were saying has been proven to be wrong. These reactors are unsafe, out of control, radioactive pollution is spreading and getting worse, the operators have no control of the situation, cotaniment is breached, there is a meltdown in some of the cores.

Nuclear accidents are different in kind to othe accidents from power plants. the potential is there to kill huge numbers of people over long time spans

How many are killed each year due to the coal industry?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/29/nuclear-power-safe-sir-david-king?CMP=twt_gu ]"As far as we know, not one person has died from radiation," he added. "Let me put that in context - in the same week, 30 coal miners died. Generating electricity from coal is far more dangerous."[/url]

don't forget that thousands of people are killed in the uk from breathing naturally occurring Radon gas.

(10% of all lung cancer cases)

people did die in the explosion did they not? Only a couple tho IIRc

And again totally disingenuous from you there rio - classic nuclear apologist. How many uranium miners die?

People will die from this radiation - have no doubt about that - but it will be in the way of extra cancers over long timescales.

How many uranium miners die?

How many uranium miners die?

Seriously, there's no caveat, I'm interested to know.

How many uranium miners die?

I can find at least 2 deaths recorded in Uranium mines in the last 10 years. Apparently there are about 100 working Uranium mines in the world. There are many more coal mines so the death rate can be expected to be proportionally higher - Wikipedia reports over 6000 deaths in Chinese coal mines in 2004 for example. No idea how this works out in deaths per kWh, which is the figure that really matters.

interesting Rio.

deaths per kWh, which is the figure that really matters.

I guess so.

I do think nuclear does give a particularly unpredictable and long lasting risk. We haven't had a really bad accident yet.

It'll be Heysham next:
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/earthquake_hits_fylde_coast_1_3242222

Nuclear accidents are different in kind to othe accidents from power plants. the potential is there to kill huge numbers of people over long time spans

You're correct, however, the normal operation of coal fired plants has killed, from both the mining of coal and subsequent pollution from its burning, many more than all the nuclear accidents in the world ever will. This is even if you take some of the more hysterical numbers of deaths attributed to Chernobyl, but with no scientifically proven link.

At present, if we were to decommission the existing nukes we have, and were not to build any more, the only energy source that won't run out in the next 40 years is coal. Frankly I'd rather live next door to Sellafield than Drax.

It'll be Heysham next:

One assumes you know what day it is 😉

"people did die in the explosion did they not? Only a couple tho IIRc"

No TJ. No-one has died from the problems at the plant. Obviously, there is still significant potential that a worker will be hurt.

"Thorium - still experimental"

Yes-and no. Working Thorium plant has been trialled with success decades ago (google Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Thorium), but not yet been built for industrial purposes. A pity because it has many advantages, including safety.

There is a reason for this: Our current reactor technology is based on the Uranium cycle. Because Uranium reactors were the way to make Plutonium for weapons - energy production was a useful byproduct. And the military paid for most of the research. So the entire technology and infrastructure we have was driven by the overriding need for nuclear weapons during the cold war.

Internationally, we need to throw money at Thorium. The process is radically different and has many advantages.

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/ ]The Register[/url] reports that China is going for it.

[url= http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/qa-thorium-reactor-designer-ratan-kumar-sinha ]India's been working on it for a while too.[/url]

"the rate at which nuclear programs are growing worldwide, it is projected that by 2028 any new power plant will not have a guaranteed lifetime of uranium supply. So, one has to go for recycling as well as thorium. I don't see any shortcut as such."

This seems to be India's motivation. Although they need Plutonium for their weapons, they recognise that there isn't enough for their energy needs.

It looks like their research isn't directed to the Liquid Thorium salt process though.

buzz-lightyear - Member

"people did die in the explosion did they not? Only a couple tho IIRc"

No TJ. No-one has died from the problems at the plant. Obviously, there is still significant potential that a worker will be hurt.

No - two died as I thought I remembered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12949783

TandemJeremy - Member

buzz-lightyear - Member

"people did die in the explosion did they not? Only a couple tho IIRc"

No TJ. No-one has died from the problems at the plant. Obviously, there is still significant potential that a worker will be hurt.

No - two died as I thought I remembered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12949783

Wrong again TJ - the two deaths at Fukushima were as a result of the tsunami, not the explosion.

They died from dead injuries during the tsunami. I'm amazed more workers weren't killed. I guess they were outside when the water struck the plant.

The report also mentions problems sealing the hole with concrete. Now they are going to try a polymer. At least they know where the leak is. They have to plug it in order to be able to move about freely and improve the reactor cooling regime.

TJ - not once have you ever in any of these threads over the past few years come up with a meaningful viable solution to the world's current energy situation that doesn't involve either burning a lot of coal or implicitly reducing population numbers. Once you have, perhaps you'd like to tell us all (or even edukate [sic] us)?

Until then, some less biased rhetoric from someone of your intelligence would be helpful. There's a wealth of evidence from peer-reviewed, reputable sources that agrees with myself and others who simply state that at present, the choice is: nukes, coal, less people, or lights out. Sadly for referencing to an online forum to back up my case, this is a little tricky as it's mostly behind the paywall, but here's a link to an article in this month's [i]Nature Geoscience[/i]: [url=doi:10.1038/ngeo1136]Nature Geoscience, 4, 209 (2011)[/url]

Zokes - I have many times. It really is very simple. Reduce energy usage, invest in renewables.

Its the only possible answer. Nuclear is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Plenty of smart people doing hard sums that show this approach could work. However the technophiles don't want to know about a low tech low cost low profit solution.

TJ, if it is so simple, so 'low tech, low cost' why hasn't it happened? Contrary to many posts on the 'payrise' thread, the private sector isn't stupid.

You always say 'reduce usage'. I always challenge you as to how much reduction is viable vs what is required, you always fail to give a credible answer. If you can give a realistic scenario of how the westernised world can reduce its energy usage by 80ish %, whilst at the same time convincing the 2.5 bn people in China and India et al. that the weternised, energy-intensive lifestyle isn't all it's cracked up to be, then lets hear it...

If not, then I'd guess it's gas (running out iminmently), coal, or nukes. You would have to be exceedingly ignorant to think that in a whole lifecycle approach, coal comes out as more environmentally friendly.

Zokes - why hasn't it happened? In a capitalist society profit is the main driver. There is no profit in reducing consumption. Hence no significant progress in this direction. Capitalism relies on ever increasing consumption.

Where do you get the 80% figure from?

It is a total fallacy to suggest that we can continue to use energy at the rate we do now. Energy efficiency and usage reduction and renewables is the only answer

And political will of course. No one wants to hear the truth that they must use less energy, pay more for their energy and make compromises to their lifestyle

To be fair to TJ I also support efficiency as part of the package. There are lots of domestic situations where households can generate electricity. My neighbour has solar panels that generate about half his leccy. It's expensive but if half the population could do this then it's 25% less of that segment. Tidal and wind can make significant contributions once we find ways to mitigate the significant environmental and visual impacts. This is very hard for people to accept because at the moment people just see the power as unlimited supply that comes down the wire by magic.

But base load is essential and carbon reduction important. I can't see how we do without nuclear in the mix. I see the question is how much, how safe and what type. when you read a little about liquid thorium salt reaction it seems really sad that the research and infrastructure stopped. It is clear we need to shut down old reactor designs and build new safer designs. PWR is state of the art at this moment.

In a capitalist society profit is the main driver

So surely given current energy prices, 'low tech, low cost' would give nice profit margins? Or maybe it's not so 'low tech, low cost' after all? Ultimately, a business exec wouldn't care two hoots if his millions come from nukes, coal, wind or anything else.

My 80% figue, whilst pulled slightly out of thin air, represents the fairly optimistic end of what is viably producible from renewables compared to our currently energy (NOT just electricity) usage.

Again, if all this low tech, low cost technology is here (or anywhere near here), then lets see you roll it out to the 7 bn people of the world, and you'll get your Nobel prize. If it's so easy, why not tell us how....

No one wants to hear the truth that they must use less energy, pay more for their energy and make compromises to their lifestyle

Ah, now you speak sense. So now we're back to the real world, and you concede that the political will doesn't exist, which is the least environmentally impacting energy source capable of mass-producing energy?

zokes - the low cost low tech is doing stuff like using wool, straw and recycled newspapers to insulate building. No profits for seimans in this. Or turning off the lights that burn all night. No profit in that

Political will - it could be changed

Political will - it could be changed

We're back to this again. You mis-placed faith in politicians (or more correctly, the general public) won't generate the energy that modern society requires. As I have said repetedly, the mere notion of a 'carbon tax' to reduce emissions and usage over here in Oz is not far from causing our frail governnment to collapse.

I simply have no idea why you cannot separate the ideal world from the real world.

Base load - tidal ( easily generate 24/7/365) and I like the look of using hydrogen to smooth peaks and troughs in demand although I realise it adds significant inefficiencies.

If the amount of money spent on Nukes had been spent on renewables over the last 30 years then how much better would they be? Teh major issue of course is physics - virtually all renewables are low grade energy.

Take the corryvraken for example - enough tidal energy to power most of scotland. Its a brazzillion tonnes of water at plenty of mph but the head is only a few feet. Makes it hard to extract the energy

I suspect there would be a lot more opposition to any tidal scheme than nuclear.

The severn estuary scheme is a good example. A few birds lose out and that's the end of it.

zokes - Member

I simply have no idea why you cannot separate the ideal world from the real world.

Pot kettle black.

I have no idea why you support nukes as in the real world they are simply unable to provide the answer. Expensive, unreliable, polluting and most importantly thrre is not enough fuel available to power the world

I am for research to continue - hoping that thorium or similar will be proven to work and / or fusion can be made to work.

If thorium was so good then why are the big companies not investing in it? Oh thats right - no profit for them

5th - tidal does not have to mean barrages

And so, rather than answering my response to the question you posed, you twist and turn again. Soon you'll be declaring that you didn't mean it at all - the 'TJ defence' as I recall it had been damed by others.

You miss the point entirely. There simply isn't enough renewable energy available to provide for our current energy usage, let alone the ever-incraesing requirements of the 2-3bn people in the developing world. Atomic technologies, of which uranium fission is by far the crudest technique, are the only means of catering for the world's ever-increasing population. The cut-back in funding following Chernobyl put back development by 30 years. What most of the 'nuclear evangelists' on this thread simply wish to point out that another cut-back in nuclear would leave only coal as a viable option. An option taht anyone with half a brain can realise is a damned sight more environmentally damaging than nuclear.

5th - tidal does not have to mean barrages

What have I not answered?

How do you get round the fact that there is not enough nuclear fuel?
Of course there is plenty of renewable energy. Harvesting it is the issue but the energy is there

5th - tidal does not have to mean barrages

[url= http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/userfiles/file/sound%20of%20islay%20leaflet.pdf ]Sound of Islay Tidal Array[/url]

5th - there is a non barrage tidal generation scheme being installed of the scottish coast. Actually non barrage schemes are viable

The bit you conveniently forget is this: [b]The 30 year hiatus in nuclear investment following TMI and Chernobyl is what has set back technologies such as fusion and Th by about 30 years[/b].

The trouble is that Fukushima is just the ammunition the short-sighted anti-nuclear lobby needs to cut back agin, just as progress was being made. Had such a cut back not been made 30 years ago, the '50 years until fusion' might now only be 20 years away - less than half the lifespan of a U-fission plant. As it is, we'd still require at least two generations of any conventional plant.

That's not the severn.

I bet the local do-gooders think it'll upset dolphins or something.

With nuclear and other options it would make a whole lot more sense to pass some laws so the government can act strategically with no hassle from nimbys.

How do you get round the fact that there is not enough nuclear fuel

Ever heard of 're-processing'? Whodathunkit - recycling in the nuclear sector 🙄

That is a ridiculous assumption without any basis at all.

If all the money wasted on the dead end of nukes had been spent on efficiency and renewable how much better would both be?

Zokes - reprocessing - is that not the uranium cycle againa nd does it not create massive amounts of waste that we have no way of dealing with?

Or is Fukushima not actually the proof that nukes are unreliable and dangerous?

That is a ridiculous assumption without any basis at all.

Really? No basis whatsoever?

Are you seriously suggesting that the primary funders of nuclear energy research - governments and nuclear companies - seeing no immediate future for nuclear power due to public perception as a result of two disasters just carried on research as fast as they could?!? Nope, the governments stopped funding like a stone wall, and companies scaled back R&D significantly. This is why the ITER still isn't finished.

I would have thought such logic would be quite simple for you to grasp...

If all the money wasted on the dead end of nukes had been spent on efficiency and renewable how much better would both be?

I don't know.
Do you?

The argument that nuclear is both expensive/inefficient and also the choice of capitalism is confusing to me.

Or is Fukushima not actually the proof that nukes are unreliable and dangerous?

Given what happened to the plant (worst quake on record and a massive tsunami), I (and many others) would conclude that it is infact a damned sight safer than most had imagined. Would you like me to go back through the three concurrently running threads and re-highlight to you numbers of deaths from other energy generation methods? Or are you at least capable of that yourself?

Zokes - reprocessing - is that not the uranium cycle againa nd does it not create massive amounts of waste that we have no way of dealing with?

It is the uranium cycle. Despite your apparent wilful pig-headedness, even you must be able to get the link between 'huge cutbacks in R&D' and 'old technology in use'.

We have plenty ways of dealing with it. Mainly, bury it well out of the way of anywhere where it can ahve an environmental or human effect. Compare and contrast this with our current disposal methods for CO2 etc...

Or is Fukushima not actually the proof that nukes are unreliable and dangerous?

Hit by an earthquake and great big tsunami and nothing much happens.

I'm more than happy to have one down the road from me (which I have). Better than windmills.

Higgo - correct - no one knows.

Nukes is the choice of capitalism because its expensive 🙄 Lots of lovely profits - subsidised profits at that

Fukushima showing how safe it is? Its still not under control and indeed the news continues to get worse. We hgave core meltdown, containment breach, massive radioactive release that continues to get worse and you claim it shows how safe it is? Are you blind? Teh Japanese government are now saying the evacuation zone might have to be permanent the pollution is that bad

the pollution is that bad

Take a look at any of the evidence for its immediate alternatives (coal, gas), and tell me with a straight face their emissions have caused less damage on a global scale. Your arguments are beginning to suffer greatly from your lack of objectiveness.

How about on a local scale? Or even global? Look at the state of the irish sea? Look at the area around chernobly.

No conventional power station accident needs people evacuated from miles around it for decades.

You are so wedded to your high tech belief in nukes that your mind is completely closed to its disadvantages and the alternatives.

No conventional power station accident needs people evacuated from miles around it for decades.

Nope, they just do it through 'normal operation'. Have you forgotten aboiut the small issue of climate change; rising sea levels and changed weather patterns?

Why are you being so obtuse?

"If the amount of money spent on Nukes had been spent on renewables over the last 30 years then how much better would they be?"

You are right, with a caveat. Look back at my posts...

We are where we are with Uranium reactors because of the cold war need for Plutonium. There is no argument about this. The technology and infrastructure existed so it's not surprising that this happened.

It's clear we are overdue moving on to better technology like wind, tidal, wave, Thorium, carbon capture, solar panels, low-cost insulation etc. These things are happening but for various reasons* will take decades to bear fruit and meanwhile there is an "Energy Gap". Uranium PWRs will partially fill that gap, not much else can.

*concerns about environment, wildlife, visual impact, cost of technology research, public opinion, predicted demand, cost per unit etc, all have to be worked through with the public before politicians can make it happen. This takes decades.

Lots of lovely profits

Oh pleeease...

We are not living in a communist state here - get used to it. If you want to see how responsible communist states have been with this topic [b]AHEM: CHERNOBYL!!![/b]

zokes - Member

Why are you being so obtuse?

I am not. I have a different point of view from you . IMO you are being really obtuse refusing to see the obvious disadvantages of Nukes and refusing to see just how dangerous they are - even with the evidence before your eyes

As TJ is so anti-nuclear I just hope he refuses to use the 30% of the electricity coming into his home generated by nuclear power.

Dibbs -I use significantly less energy than the average uk resident.

Its all about total energy usage and total environmental penalty

hmm whats the installed cost per kw of PV, tidal, wind V new nuclear

T1000 - no one really knows. We don't really know how much electricity Tidal will produce and no one knows the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations as it has never been done.

The only numbers you will see are guestimates and for nukes check - normally the numbers you see do not include decommissioning costs

no one knows the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations as it has never been done

When you throw sweeping and unsubstantiated remarks like this, it completely undermines your objectivity and credibility amongst readers

There is a big list of decommissioned reactors on [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning ]Wikipedia[/url], with costs.

.

Oops 😳

However if you actually look at the list - I have only had a brief glance - very few decommissioning completed at huge costs. None in the UK

Oops

However if you actually look at the list ... None in the UK

so mo one knows how much the 'green alternative' is going to cost.....

not selling it to me then....

Green alternative? Which one>?

Higgo - If I read that right neither is completed yet or even anywhere near completeed yet so it is correct to say none in the UK

completed decommissioining is wehen you have a greenfield site with no monitoring needed.

From that wiki link

Decommissionning is very expensive. The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure, decommissioning is a slow process which takes place in stages. The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time frame

We have one chance to get this right for future generations. IMO going for nuclear is putting all our eggs in one basket - and the timescales are not helpfull as it will trake decades to get any electricity out of them. We could be producing massive amounts of electricity from wave and tidal within a few years with the investment.
Nukes are also horrendously expensive with total costs unkown and all the unreliablity and danger of the nukes.

Instead we could spread our risk wider with a mixed bag of renewables and major energy conservation measures that eaily could reduce our total greenhouse gas production. If you think nuclear has been starved of funding hen renewables have been even more. One of the best - pelarmis had to get the first installation in Portugal as the UK governemnt would not fund it.

I say again if all the money wsted on nukes had been spent on energy conservation and renewables how good would they be now?

its a simple choice - the high tech high risk nukes or the low tech low risk mixed bag of efficiency measure and renewables.

Myself I like to spread the risk

IMO going for nuclear is putting all our eggs in one basket

Instead we could spread our risk wider with a mixed bag of renewables

its a simple choice - the high tech high risk nukes or the low tech low risk mixed bag of efficiency measure and renewables

Aracer - thats just such bullshine

You accuse me of being blinkered 🙄

Renewables are low risk whats the damage if / when they fail? Not billions of pounds and exclusion zones of hundreds of square miles

Nukes are high risk. it will take decades to get any new generation, fuel supplies are uncertain, it is highly polluting, it is dangerous, it is extremely expensive, there is no answer to the issues of waste an d decommissioning.

It is either / or. If we spend the huge sums needed to create new nukes we don't have any money for renewables - this is why renewables have been starved of cash for decades in the UK and only since devolution has there been significant investment in Scotland

Or are you proposing spending twice as much just so you can get the dangerous, unreliable, expensive nukes that you want - and still have no answer to waste and decommissioning

Really - you guys are so blinkered on this

energy efficiency and renewables mean there is no need for nukes and can be done cheaper and more quickly without leaving a toxic legacy for generations to come

"renewables ... unproven". Dear me, how much more proof do you want, Aracer? Windmills have been serving man for thousands of years, hydro for as long, PV 40 years, solar heating thousands of years too. The newcomer is this unmanageable nuclear stuff which results in a couple of thousand incidents a year in a country honest enough to pulish them, perhaps because it has the best safety record.

I say again if all the money wsted on nukes had been spent on energy conservation and renewables how good would they be now?

Renewables are low risk whats the damage if / when they fail?

If we spend the huge sums needed to create new nukes we don't have any money for renewables

how much more proof do you want, Aracer? Windmills have been serving man for thousands of years, hydro for as long, PV 40 years

I'm looking for proven renewable technology capable of supplying our base load year round in the way nuclear can. We don't have enough sun for 3+ months of the year, the wind doesn't always blow (and sometimes blows too much), and we simply don't have enough hydro resource to cover our needs. The only viable renewable on the horizon capable of supplying the baseload to replace nuclear/carbon is tidal, and that [b]is[/b] still very unproven on the scales required.

The newcomer is this unmanageable nuclear stuff which results in a couple of thousand incidents a year in a country honest enough to pulish them

aracer - Member

You do realise that many more people died in Japan in the aftermath of the quake due to lack of power than will ever die due to the nuclear reactor going wrong? When will you ever look at the bigger picture including the dangers of the sources of energy you like?

How many people was that then? tidal and wave is fairly earthquake / tsunami proof as well

We cannot yet even estimate the number of extra cancers from the radioactive release - because its not stopped yet. It could easily be thousands of deaths over a generation. It might only be hundreds

The only viable renewable on the horizon capable of supplying the baseload to replace nuclear/carbon is tidal

I dunno - how do you handle two flat spots a day? (honest question)

Molgrips - a tidal installation has around 18 - 20 hrs. a day of generation, around the coast the tide is at very different times - so with a few different locations......

the other answer is to use surplus electricity to split water for hydrogen and then use that at times of peak load to generate electricity. added inefficiencies tho

I'd rather live next door to a nuclear power station than hydrogen storage.

At 43° N I'm further south than parts of Spain. I really don't believe any rational person would claim I live in northern Europe.

We're now into a "dialogue de sourds", Aracer. Why not just call those that have demonstrated that renewables are viable for large scale production liars and be done with it. Spain, France and Germany are all over 16% renewable production whilst exploiting a tiny proportion of their solar, tidal and wind potential. We know the way, we lack the will.

400!