Interesting debate Roger

Most renewable energies are better for the environment than burning fossil fuels. (Primarily smoke and pollution emissions) I would also include nuclear fuels power in this group to a certain exstent.  There are however a lot of caveats.

Nuclear power stations are normally run at 100% and can not be increased or decreased as quick as needed to keep the National Grid stable at 240v @ 50 Hz or there about.  Although as we were once part of the EU should we not be putting out 230V nominal?  

Fossil fuels give the NG the flexibility to ramp up or down production of power as is required.  To certain extend so does Solar PV and Wind, again with caveat Sun and Wind are needed to be present at that time.  Tidal power is more constant but also has fluctuations.

There are several things that I see surround Nuclear Power.
The Life cycle.  How many years after it shutdown does the facility still need to run to be made safe?
The inherent dangers should something go wrong internally or by external influences.  Eg Fukushima 2011, Chernobyl 1986
The Germans seem to be closing down some of their nuclear reactors recently for the above reasons.

I think long term we need to make more power and learn to store it better and also make all our electricity consumption more efficient. As an example we have a lot of wind turbines in the North around Scotland but they are just wind power.  They could have a collar put around them that could harness the tidal power and feed it down the existing power lines to shore.  On shore they need to build more large capacity battery storage for when there is a large amount of wind but a lack of customer usage.  There will also be days that there is not enough wind and on those days the Nation Grid power will need to come from other sources. 

It is also worth mentioning that if we as a nation completly move away from oil to produce power we will still drill for oil.  A lot of people are not aware how many everyday items are made from PetroChemicals.

Interesting debate Roger

Most renewable energies are better for the environment than burning fossil fuels. (Primarily smoke and pollution emissions) I would also include nuclear fuels power in this group to a certain exstent.  There are however a lot of caveats.

Nuclear power stations are normally run at 100% and can not be increased or decreased as quick as needed to keep the National Grid stable at 240v @ 50 Hz or there about.  Although as we were once part of the EU should we not be putting out 230V nominal?  

Fossil fuels give the NG the flexibility to ramp up or down production of power as is required.  To certain extend so does Solar PV and Wind, again with caveat Sun and Wind are needed to be present at that time.  Tidal power is more constant but also has fluctuations.

There are several things that I see surround Nuclear Power.
The Life cycle.  How many years after it shutdown does the facility still need to run to be made safe?
The inherent dangers should something go wrong internally or by external influences.  Eg Fukushima 2011, Chernobyl 1986
The Germans seem to be closing down some of their nuclear reactors recently for the above reasons.

I think long term we need to make more power and learn to store it better and also make all our electricity consumption more efficient. As an example we have a lot of wind turbines in the North around Scotland but they are just wind power.  They could have a collar put around them that could harness the tidal power and feed it down the existing power lines to shore.  On shore they need to build more large capacity battery storage for when there is a large amount of wind but a lack of customer usage.  There will also be days that there is not enough wind and on those days the Nation Grid power will need to come from other sources. 

It is also worth mentioning that if we as a nation completly move away from oil to produce power we will still drill for oil.  A lot of people are not aware how many everyday items are made from PetroChemicals.