[Closed] 'The Greenest Government Ever' and wind turbines?

You couldn't make it up

Once you've stopped frothing read the article again, they aren't proposing to pull any down, and are still going to allow another 3000 to be built. Lets be honest there is nothing green about generating electricity, simply less bad options, so a mixed energy policy makes the best sense.

Don't see the point in pulling down existing ones but I do support a closer look at new ones. They are not the answer to our energy needs that people think they are and the only people gaining are those rich enough already to invest in the schemes.

Another attempt to out-UKIP UKIP. NIMBYism as official government policy.

Yay.

Wind turbines alone won't solve it.

Until a government has the halls to spend our dwindling North Sea oil revenues on tidal/wave and, I'm afraid you have to be pragmatic, nuclear, this isn't going to be fixed any time soon.

If any government since Kyoto was genuinely going to try and make a difference, all new homes would have been required to have solar panels, and public transport would have been invested in, including cycle infrastructure. They have all failed to make a concrete step like that.

They are all selfish spineless short termists who don't care.

I do not understand this thought that wind turbines are green.
They have to be
manufactured
Transported
Have roads built through the countryside to there sites
Foundations laid
Maintained
Limited lifespan

Has a study been done to prove that they are greener than other forms of energy generation when all factors are looked at?

I do not understand this thought that wind turbines are green.
They have to be
manufactured
Transported
Have roads built through the countryside to there sites
Foundations laid
Maintained
Limited lifespan

Did you ever stop to consider whether environmental scientists might have already conducted studies that answer that.

Because if they had and had found windfarms polluted more than coal or gas, then we'd know about it.

Conventional power stations have to be:
[i]"manufactured
Transported
Have roads built through the countryside to there sites
Foundations laid
Maintained
Limited lifespan"[/i]
[b]And use fuel to produce energy[/b]

Simple 😉

Conventional power stations are more reliable and produce more energy than a wind farm.
Pollution caused versus energy made is the debate.

I bet no one independent has done an end to end study of wind turbines green credentials.

My former employer (a government department) introduced a hybrid only lease car policy for managers. I asked them to justify it by showing me that the production, transportation, use and disposal of such a vehicle was greener than my British built diesel that was averaging 55mph, and HR went into ****ing meltdown. Got a right stroppy reply from the HR director himself telling me how important it was to be seen to be reducing our emmissions. He never replied to my response that being seen to be doing something may be less effective than common sense experience.

Have roads built through the countryside to there sites

Not necessarily you can bring it in by boat to many, as they are often built near sea / river for cooling. Plus their footprint is nothing like an onshore wind farm.

onventional power stations have to be:
"manufactured
Transported
Have roads built through the countryside to there sites
Foundations laid
Maintained
Limited lifespan"
And use fuel to produce energy

Even when the wind isn't blowing.

Dave, Nick and a STWer

[img] [/img]

As I recall, a wind turbine is a net energy producer after a year or so - that's when the output surpasses the energy in manufacture and installation.

But I can't remember the reference so that may not be correct.

I don't know for solar, but thermal is never a net producer as you have to keep shovelling coal (other energy sources are available) into the thing.

Arguably you need to shovel wind into a wind turbine, but seeing as it was passing anyway...

PS. Anyone who thinks wind only or solar only or nuclear only etc is the answer doesn't understand the question.

Energy payback times are a good question to ask about any renewable energy production. Less than 10% of production for the ones I've checked.

The whole British population gets to vote for its government, government policy though is dictated by those who fund the party. Check out the interests of [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10458732/Conservative-donors-are-flocking-to-Ukip.html ]those that donate[/url] for an insight into whom you are really voting for. In civilised countries political parties are funded by the state according to the votes they win and private funding is not allowed.

As I recall, a wind turbine is a me energy producer after a year or so - that's when the output surpasses the energy in manufacture and installation.

Onzadog - Member

...Don't see the point in pulling down existing ones...

They're full of really useful stuff like neodymium. So we'll be pulling them down sooner or later - that stuff makes really good fridge magnets.

Even when the wind isn't blowing.

I'd be keen to see what thought is being given to changing our pattern of use. One of the criticisms of windpower is that its not consistent in its supply. However if you look at the origins of the national grid and our patterns of consumption our use of electircity was shaped to suit the way it was generated and supplied. Thats why all the high street shops selling electrical goods were run by your local generating company - they had to market products like fridges and freezers that used power day and night to smooth out demand. Its one of the reasons why we have streetlights running all through the night too. So the 'demand' for a regular consistent supply is one thats been created and it wouldn't be too hard to alter that demand

Theres no real reason why over a fairly short time frame we couldn't change our lifestyles and belongings to accommodate the more erratic supply.

I bet no one independent has done an end to end study of wind turbines green credentials.

I wonder if anyone has ever done an end to end study of nuclear power. Oh no wait you can't because we have to manage the waste for the next few hundred years and god knows how much that will cost.

Governments are only there to get voted in by marginals. So dont hold your breath waiting for sensible policys.

I bet no one independent has done an end to end study of wind turbines green credentials.

Somehow, I think they have. Not entirely connected but this was afrom a 30 second google search.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es204108n

MoreCashThanDash - Member
I bet no one independent has done an end to end study of wind turbines green credentials.

My former employer (a government department) introduced a hybrid only lease car policy for managers. I asked them to justify it by showing me that the production, transportation, use and disposal of such a vehicle was greener than my British built diesel that was averaging 55mph, and HR went into **** meltdown. Got a right stroppy reply from the HR director himself telling me how important it was to be seen to be reducing our emmissions. He never replied to my response that being seen to be doing something may be less effective than common sense experience.

but your diesel is pumping out very toxic fumes right where people live and breathe, towns and cities, and into your very own car-
I believe diesel fumes have just been bumped up the WHO carcinogen list too

kind of ironic during the current smog outbreak that has already seen a rise in hospital admissions for people with breathing difficulties

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-27/one-in-eight-deaths-worldwide-linked-to-air-pollution

and tory objections to windfarms have nothing to do with their opinions on the environment and far more to do with keeping nimby UKipers happy and making sure nigel lawsons benefactors are well serviced

we have to manage the waste for the next few hundred years

more than a few 🙂

Theres an interesting debate surrounding a nuclear waste dump somewhere (Finland? I cant remember) which is - what language do you write the warning signs in. The half life of the material is longer than all human history to date. Longer than all the notions of country and nation we have, longer than the history of all modern spoken and written language. So theres no way to guess which language will persist for the working life of the dump or even who's national boundary the dump will be in during that time.

'Warning:Totes radiation. Lulz'

kind of ironic during the current smog outbreak

neodymium

Would that make even punchier guitar pickups than alnico 5 or would it stop the strings vibrating altogether?

Current production is 7A and consumption 1A, it's true that if every house in France were producing the same surplus it would require a lot of pump storage capacity. There are lots of ways of managing demand, the Italians have a system for remote control of appliances, that along with intelligent metering does a lot to smooth demand. At present the only intelligence in our house is the occupants: on days when we don't have enough solar hot water we avoid turning on the immersion heater during peak demand times.

Ploughing more resources into dismantling the turbines presently generating electricity?

What about the rest of them 😆

kind of ironic during the current smog outbreak that has already seen a rise in hospital admissions for people with breathing difficulties

wind farms cleaner and greener than nuclear, coal fired power stations, gas fired power stations. never heard of anyone been killed in a wind farm either or even getting blown over by the draught..

not a perfect solution but far preferable to the alternatives.. build em out at sea or in lancashire and nobody will care..

Living 9° further south we get a lot more Saharan dust, I can assure you it's orange not white. It even makes the snow look orange when we get southerly winds in winter. There is never a perceptible haze or smog during these periods and I live in an area that is pretty much air pollution free.

Given our energy requirements over the next decades (century?), even with improved efficiency, it appears to me that nuclear is the only way of meeting short to medium term demand.

count zero the pollution in London at least has reached levels 7 or 8 several times already this year and that has nothing to do with saharan dust its predominantly caused by diesel exhuast from hgvs, taxis and buses in particular
NO2 levels have been very high and thats unrelated to saharan dust

lots of info here
https://twitter.com/CleanAirLondon

its already shaping up to be a record breaking year for air pollution in the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tourists-attractions-in-london-harbour-illegal-levels-of-air-pollution-9147444.html

Only if demand remains at current levels. I suggest everyone looks at every appliance in their house and compare it with the most energy efficient model currently on the market. I did that ten years ago and have now replaced most of them. The result is that despite going from gas water heating to solar/electricity our electricity consumption hasn't increased.

LEDs to replace every halogen bulb
A 2200W oven instead of 3500W that heats up faster
A fridge that consumes a third less (sorry I've forgotten the Kws per year).
A sat box that no longer heats the room.

Edit: a bonus is that the house is cooler in Summer.
A more efficient hob

Until a government has the halls to spend our dwindling North Sea oil revenues on tidal/wave and, I'm afraid you have to be pragmatic, nuclear, this isn't going to be fixed any time soon.

Probably all true. Doesn't mean that we don't also need MORE wind generation (on shore as well as off) and more energy storage, probably more hydro storage.

Tidal/wave energy seem to be the big win that's being prevented by people resistant to change. Yes, yes, habitat for birds etc... sod it... harness that power ASAP.

The only reason for building wind farms is because it is an easy way for the government to meet its emission targets.

Turning up at an energy summit an announcing they can meet the 20% (or some other figure plucked from the sky) reduction every one (apart from the US & China)have voted for by building 'X' amount of wind turbines means they can sit back and enjoy the facilities of the 5 star resort they have just flown into along with hundreds of other government ministers, hangers on and journos.

The above may not be 100% accurate, but personally I don't think it is far from the truth.

Wind farms cost a fortune and have to have a conventional power station ticking over 24/7 to take up the slack.

Edukator - Troll

Would that make even punchier guitar pickups than alnico 5 or would it stop the strings vibrating altogether?

Neodymium pickups do exist apparently "the fully optimized Q2.0 pickups offer a distinctive broadband sound quality loaded with high order harmonics along with a wide dynamic range". How have we lived without this? I'm going to pull down a wind turbine and steal the magnets.

Euan Mearns blogs on energy.

The Green effort so far in the UK has resulted in wind contributing about 2.3%, solar 0.15%* and biofuels 0.16% of all the energy we use (Figure 7). All the economic pain and landscape degradation inflicted so far is making a negligible impact on the total energy budget. To make any significant impact the current levels of deployment would need to be multiplied 10 to 20 fold. Do any of our main stream political parties really want to inflict this on Britain?

[img] [/img]

http://euanmearns.com/brave-green-world-and-the-cost-of-electricity/

All the economic pain and landscape degradation

what a load of bobbins

Not sure what the point is of that quote from Euan Mearns....

We need lots more wind farms if wind is to contribute anything significant to our generation mix. Arguing that we need lots more wind farms isn't a useful argument against building lots more wind farms.

Ploughing more resources into dismantling the turbines presently generating electricity?
What about the rest of them

I know the Daily Wail, an impartial source of information on this subject, love to howl how wind turbines only work 0.5% of the time, but heres the view from the front of my house…

[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8339/8181591122_de3a4c66b1_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8339/8181591122_de3a4c66b1_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Nice innit? So I these these buggers every morning when I get up. And I can tell you, in all honesty, that you can count on one hand the days in a year when they aren't whizzing round. And despite the fact that some people round our way have up to 8 fingers on each webbed extremity, thats still not many 😀 They were still yesterday. Its blowing the usual gale up there again today

irc - Member

The Green effort so far in the UK has resulted in wind contributing about 2.3%, solar 0.15%* and biofuels 0.16% of all the energy we use (Figure 7). All the economic pain and landscape degradation inflicted so far is making a negligible impact on the total energy budget.

Presumably he says the same about nuclear? If renewables need to increase 10-fold to be worthwhile then nuclear still needs to increase 5-fold. Rverything that's not carbon based is worthless by his logic.

Meanwhile in Scotland

[img] [/img]

But that's production, not consumption Northwind

Energy payback times for solar PV and wind:

Skip to slides 40-43 for the graphs for wind.

Alex - the thing about electricity is, pump storage aside, production needs to equal consumption or the frequency shifts from the nice 50Hz (ish) you're used to.

But it is a pie chart of power capacity presumably installed capacity) not of energy produced , so the charts aren't quite equivalent.

Scotland has a much bigger land mass vs population compared to England, so it's not really a helpful comparison.

I would like to see those charts in times series, GW used per year per source and overall for perhaps the last 30 years.

dragon - Member

Scotland has a much bigger land mass vs population compared to England, so it's not really a helpful comparison.

Both have massive amounts of usable empty space, landmass isn't a constraint on renewable energy use in either country. (and England doesn't lack for coast either)

Read The God Species by Alex Lynas.

Brilliant book that covers everything from energy policy to food production and land use. It details how commonly held beliefs and policies are destroying our planet and gives credible solutions to the issues.

In particular he holds greenies partly resposible for our current predicament due to their resistance of technlogy and progress to solve our issues. They are effectively burying their heads in the sand.

His, very credible, view is that on shore wind is a marging topic, offshore a bit more relevant but still pissing into the wind (so to speak). They will only ever account for a small proportion of the required demand and are "expensive", not so much financially but in terms of the ammount of scarse resources they take to build. Maybe there will be outliers like Scotland where wind is higher up the agenda but globally it's a pinprick.

He also dismisses traditionally green alternatives, hydro for example is seen as green becuase its so low in carbon emissions but this isn't the only enviromental issue. Hydro electricity has had an enourmous detrimental effect on our planet already.

The only viable answer is nuclear. But the green loby means our view of the technology is stuck in the 70s. ****ashima damaged this further. But if you look at it pragmatically nuclear is the safest energy technology around. Even when one of the worlds worst natural disaters slammer right into the side of an old plant without the latest technology the impact was virtually zero. Even at chenobyl (sp?) wildlife is thriving and the negative impact of the radiation is hotely contested.

Nuclear is clean, its carbon free, its safe and even if we never work out what to do with the waste it's practically inconsequential. (Hence why nobody has bothered with solving the issue). And if we had invested in the technology rather than being afraid of it we would be decades ahead of where we are now, with even safer, cheaper, cleaner power

[img] [/img]

pump storage aside

Er... no aside... we need more hydro storage schemes for renewables to make sense, and to cope with peaks in demand, and we need to be building them NOW.

Maybe there will be outliers like Scotland where wind is higher up the agenda but globally it's a pinprick.

Indeed.
Solar power in the deserts of the Americas.
Wind and tidal in the UK.
Use what's on your doorstep...

The are plenty of threads on "safe dose". The conclusion on most is that what the nuclear industry considers a safe dose is not a safe dose for those studying genetics and the way mutations occur. Even the background radiation is a non-safe dose, especially if you live in a granite house.

Solar power in the deserts of the Americas.
Wind and tidal in the UK.

Renewables as a whole are a pin prick really.

If we don't embrace nuclear we are basically buggered.

The are plenty of threads on "safe dose". The conclusion on most is that what the nuclear industry considers a safe dose is not a safe dose for those studying genetics and the way mutations occur

Maybe so but there is also no evidence of increase mortality amound the 300,000ish people who were directly affected by Chernobyl. And certainly none around Fukashmia or safely operating nuclear plants.

And nuclear power isn't the only source of radioation. The residues from coal fired power plants are incredibly radiotactive for example.

Kelvin - I think that was the point I was making on pump storage. It's the only major technology that allows you to produce more than you consume and still balance the system. There are chemical and pneumatic (and I think kinetic) solutions but smaller scale at present.

It's the only major technology that allows you to produce more than you consume and still balance the system

True - But suitable sites to construct pumped storage are also few and far between.

Nuclear is clean, its carbon free, its safe and even if we never work out what to do with the waste it's practically inconsequential. (Hence why nobody has bothered with solving the issue).

Eh?

And if we had invested in the technology rather than being afraid of it we would be decades ahead of where we are now, with even safer, cheaper, cleaner power

We haven't invested in nuclear power? 😕

You could surely argue the same about renewables anyway.

i thought we were getting or close allies the russians and chinese state owned companies to invest in our nuclear reactors

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24604218

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/11/russian-nuclear-firm-build-power-station-uk

Nuclear is clean, its carbon free, its safe and even if we never work out what to do with the waste it's practically inconsequential. (Hence why nobody has bothered with solving the issue).
Eh?

IIRC

#1 fling waste into marianas trench
#2 proceed to completely forget about it, as the immense depth of sea water prevents any radiation from getting anywhere near anything

you might end up with the odd ill tempered mutant sea bass, but that's about it

or

#3 or maybe hang on to the waste, seeing as there's this workable idea you might be able to further use some or most of it in new reactor types. [url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/ ]linky dink[/url]

proceed to completely forget about it, as the immense depth of sea water prevents any radiation from getting anywhere near anything

you might end up with the odd ill tempered mutant sea bass, but that's about it

[img] [/img]

One thing to bear in mind with the nuclear "waste" problem.

It's not a waste problem, it's a semantics problem.

The "waste" typically has about 97% of the original energy still in it.

Our nuclear "waste" is an enormous stockpile of nuclear fuel.

jfletch - Member

Renewables as a whole are a pin prick really.

If we don't embrace nuclear we are basically buggered.

Meanwhile in Scotland... 39% of Scottish electricity generation is renewable- the single biggest generation method. And that's growing at a stupid rate- the increase in the last 10 years is astonishing.

Trouble with nuclear is at the current rate of consumption we run out of known uranium reserves in 90 years... But we're not talking current rates, we're talking massive expansion. So really we start to rely on alternative fuels, which are looking like good options but not really the sort of thing you want to bet the world on.

It also means vast capital projects, and lots of them, starting yesterday. In fact just sustaining the current uk percentage is a big project, with so many reactors being old and the lead time to generation being so long.

Maybe so but there is also no evidence of increase mortality amound the 300,000ish people who were directly affected by Chernobyl. And certainly none around Fukashmia or safely operating nuclear plants.

Even if only 1 in a hundred of the Chernobyl thyroid cancer victims have so far died that is still an increase in mortality that can be directly attributed to the accident. The British National Radiological protection board estimates total deaths will be between 4 200 and 80 000.

I didn't see before the link to Euan Mearns blog. He's a climate change denier/skeptic who's view is that the use of hydrocarbons is not detrimental to the environment. He knows his stuff about energy, but sadly cannot see much beyond his beloved industry. The link I posted was actually from a conference co-organised by Euan, and I later saw his expressing dismay that keynotes chose to talk about the issue of climate change. Poor duck.

I made the mistake of telling a friend from Humberside that I quite like wind turbines. I might as well of insulted his mother's family!!

All we connect round there these days...

teamhurtmore - Member

...I might as well of...

"I might as well [u]HAVE[/u]"

Correct if wrong But i am sure David cameron's dad is one with Land Turbines
on his land.
Think the problem with these is that those that produce cannot store the energy
so if to much is being produced. The farm turns them off so they get subsidies

Thanks, I knew that was wrong but was too lazy to check why. Awful grammar.

I hate the bloody things.

They are a sop designed to salve the consciences of the worried middle classes.

They are ugly.

They are making huge amounts of cash for the bent friends of our bent politicians.

The money invested in these stupid bloody things could have been used to develop proper renewable energy.

But Sebastian and Jemima can't see tidal systems as they drive their Q7 out into the country, can they?
And extracting remaining coal reserves is all a bit, well, grubby and working class isn't it?
But, ooooh look, a wind turbine! On that hill over there next to someone elses town - isn't it lovely?
Aren't we so lucky to have a government who cares about our planet?

Euan Mearns blogs on energy is about total energy consumed not electricity so is a bit misleading. Cars, tourists and rich people make the countryside a much more unpleasant place than windfarms.

Not just global warming to worry about. What about some of the elements "running out" )(economically like [url= http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/11/are-we-heading-toward-peak-fertilizer ]phosphorus [/url]

They are a sop designed to salve the consciences of the worried middle classes.

Round here, it's the middle classes who seem to object to them the most.

Sorry.

I should have said 'worried [b]urban[/b] middle classes'. 🙂

never heard of anyone been killed in a wind farm either

Nice innit? So I these these buggers every morning when I get up. And I can tell you, in all honesty, that you can count on one hand the days in a year when they aren't whizzing round. And despite the fact that some people round our way have up to 8 fingers on each webbed extremity, thats still not many They were still yesterday. Its blowing the usual gale up there again today

The view from my street has them turning a lot less than that, also when turning at least one is out of service and one has already go up in flames.

just because they are turning doesn't mean they are generating, Scout Moor has had huge issues with cable failure due to the peat moving

finally lets not start on the destruction of the deep peat on the moor due to the drainage channels placed during the road construction

but it's all right they are going to double the size, go back on commitments to those who live in the shadow of it and spend money trying to reduce/ reverse the damage to the peat whilst pretending there is a local community benefit in the jobs for the German subcontractors

Would be interesting if someone set up a shell(no pun intended) energy company and applied for a license to explore for shale gas across the road from Cameron's constituency home in that lovely Oxfordshire village....

Would be interesting if someone set up a shell(no pun intended) energy company and applied for a license to explore for shale gas across the road from Cameron's constituency home in that lovely Oxfordshire village....

personally I'd have a law that all employee's or subcontractors and their immediate families had to live within 1 Km of a fracked well for the rest of their natural life....

should create the right perspective in terms of local impact

I personally have no issues with wind turbines as unlike some of the other options, they are at least "easily removable" if and when we find a better option (and except for the composite blades are eminently recyclable themselves). We could probably take down the average wind farm in a month, and except for a few concrete bases, leave little of no trace of it ever having been there! (not something you could say for a tidal barrage for example)

Unfortunately, wind generation simply cannot meet our current and future energy demands, and in fact, due to decades of twiddling our thumbs and under investment, none of the options actually can!

The most practicable option is nuclear fission, however the average "man in the street" is not educated enough to be able to understand the relative "risks" themselves and hence a lot of Woo-Woo and myth clouds that decision. For example, ask the next person you meet if we should spread our nuclear waste out across Britain and the rest of the world? When they look surprise and call you an "idiot" mention the fact that this is exactly what we currently do with our fossil fueled power stations and transport infrastructure pumping it's waste directly into the local environment. And because the volume of the waste is enormous, there is no simple "bury it under a mountain" option, even if you wanted one!

Another example is the German nation pretty much reversing it's pro-nuclear policy in the wake of the Fukishama (non)disaster, which considering the chances of Germany being hit by a Tsunami seems a bit silly.

Then we get to the rub, politicians. No politician is going to suggest a course of action that is unpopular with the general public (that self same ignorant and un-educated public i mentioned above...) because they want to stay in power for as long as possible, and if not, there tenure is way to short to make good long term strategic decisions.

Because of this, our energy policy is already too little too late, and frankly it doesn't matter if we build wind turbines or badger powered tredmills or whatever, our course is already set, and we are sailing directly into an energy scarce future.............

(hum "Terminator" end theme here^^^ for effect 😉

'They' should be promoting Thorium Nuclear fission, but oh no, there is no weapons grade by product.

Thorium is more widely available than uranium. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power ]Wiki[/url]

And tide of course, all that natural energy going to waste, day in day out millions of tons of water rising and falling naturally. Not exactly rocket science working out how to harness it.

And tide of course, all that natural energy going to waste, day in day out millions of tons of water rising and falling naturally. Not exactly rocket science working out how to harness it.

[img][url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/13600356724_f1d5a43c40_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/13600356724_f1d5a43c40_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url] [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/countzero1/13600356724/ ]image[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/countzero1/ ]CountZero1[/url], on Flickr[/img]

Solar Farms er don't work at night, the period of peak demand, there are two tides daily, you could prefabricate compartmental structures that you sink in areas of not exactly natural beauty, or create harbours where none exist and generate power from the movement of the water from one compartment to the other and of course from the natural ingress and outflow. You don't need to dam the entire severne estuary. Or sea bottom propellors like wind machines in areas of great tidal flow, there are plenty of them and they work day in day out.

Common sense and some half decent marine engineers is all that's required and some investment of course and oh guess what, the technology could be exported to other parts of the world.

switching off a wind turbine is cheaper than messing about trying to store its excess energy:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/curtail-energy-storage-090913.html

You need to get to the end of the Stanford report where they say pump storage is very efficient for any kind of storage including solar and wind turbine. Countries with a high existing capacity for pump storage built to store overnight nuclear surplus can also store surplus daytime solar production to better cope with both breakfast and dinner peaks in demand. I used to water sample hydro schemes and soon learned when they needed to generate.

Would be interesting if someone set up a shell(no pun intended) energy company and applied for a license to explore for shale gas across the road from Cameron's constituency home in that lovely Oxfordshire village....

Not in Witney, but Oxfordshire already has Didcot power station, Diamond light source, the Culham fission reactor, and Harwell where all the original nuclear research was done and has a stack of old trial reactors on site. Plus numerous quarries. So your point is?