LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
Given that you arent going to get less consumption readily or easily and small scale energyb production is likely to work out far more expesnive to implement than building a barragechilango said:That´s the problem though innit?
Best to worse imo:
less consumption meaning no new stuff needed > small scale energy production (e.g everyone has solar etc generators) > medium sized production (eg small hydro + small wind +small tidal etc) > the lagoon thingies > off shore windfarms > tidal barrage > nuke > fossil fuel
So imo the barrage is actually amongst the worst options (albeit not the very worst)
If the powers that be are framing it in barrage v nuke framework, they are hiding the real issues.![]()
The barrage stil comes out on top when you think about whats both economical and sensible
Im not actually that bothered about the other environmental implications of a large barrage, Its harnessing what happens anyway, which nuclear andfossil most definitely arent.
) might be saved anyway as the tide is let in and trapped.
Although it might fuck up the energy-generating potential, but that's a minor detail compared with keeping control of the thing