Will more wind farms solve the UK's energy crisis? 

yep. and forest ))) just start burning wood like in 17th century

because the fossil fuel lobby is hugely powerful and funds politics

The amount of waste vs the amount of energy generated is still vastly superior to coal, nuclear etc. Also the blades could be burned for energy in plasma furnaces, the glass extracted and recycled.

But they use a fossil fuel motor to spin!

And they kill thousands of birds and flying insects including bees They’re not green

@@coolcat6103 No, they harness the energy in the wind by the dynamics contained in aerodynamics to drive a shaft in a electricity generator thus producing energy. That same electricity can be used to also produce hydrogen that are made with electricity and water. In this manner long term storage of energy can achieved and compensate for times with no wind or larger needs, such as during winter.

@@Mike-ox8sq Excellent reply. Well said.

No, completely the opposite more windfarms will only increase the dependency on particularly gas but also oil. When the wind does not blow we need to rely on instant replacements they can only be provided by fossil fuel.

just a pathological liar, will literally say and get away with anything to stay in power

Nuclear energy! The safest, most area-effective and the lowest Carbon-emissions

Grow up

Grow up

@@olestokke Three mie island, Chernoble, Zaporhrhitia Fukushima

@@neilthompson8668 9/11, MA370, MA17. Therefor, airplanes should be be forbidden to use for travel.

They can't because its not meant to be the answer. It's based on lies.

@@johngammon963 Okay, what is then?

Hi Leroy how can the millions using food banks invest they can’t even buy food ? How’s about the chancellor invests for them Lots of pensioners would love free solar ?

That's a tiny part of it, 90% is for energy and will be replaced. Also recycling, biomaterials, air capture carbon materials are a possibility.

everyone who advocates nuclear energy should be put on a list of liquidators to clean up the inevitable catastrophic failure which IS inevitable.

@@public.public Incorrect. Modern nuclear power is safe and proven, with SMR (small modular reactor technology). Even better, Thorium reactor technology generates barely any waste, uses its own waste as a partial fuel-source, and is impossible to experience reactor meltdown or overload. it is the anti-Nuclear nutcases that have hijacked the green agenda, at the detriment of the populace.

​​@@public.publicyou do realize that is safer then wind right but no stay delusional to that fact not to mention your precious solar panels are poisoning your soil and food when they break

They could, if the government stopped purposely causing energy crisis through its policies.

We're a very cramped country, where are we meant to store the waste without harming anyone? People who just say nuclear is the solution without answering this question are just reckless and irresponsible.

@@jakel8627 1. Fission creates the waste, so this was more a cursory look at a solution 2. Fusion is virtually the safest bet, so all the money being spent with renewables should be pumped into developing fusion

If I made the effort with a semi detached house an ev with solar I could be energy independent with v2g tech Just park it with the stupid comments

Would love to hear your logic on that comment

Nah, they will still use either current fuels or hydrogen fuel cells

@angrykulla True that is.

They’re run by motors inside, not wind

@@coolcat6103 😂and what makes the motor turn ? Surprise surprise- wind Duuuuhhhhh

@@vtechead1 fossil fuel

@@vtechead1 lmfao Google it says YES they exploit the wind but are a pure embodiment of fossil fuel! Try again!

That is simply not true. Off shore mega windmills are the most competitive energy investment. Right now we even dont have a free market but a market that absurdly are subsidizing fossil fuels. There are something completely wrong and dark energy and dark money seem to be more than interconnected. Man left Africa and began colonizing the planet 65.000 years ago. It is more than reckless and stupid to consider nuclear energy leaving deadly waste for a periode 6 times longer than we have existed so far. Short sigthed people are in abundance.

nuclear is more than being considered, they are building an additional 8 reactors and countless smaller modular reactors, personally i want more but its a good start

Wind turbines are fast to install and in the long run costiing way less than nuclear which costs everyone way more in every conceivable way forever. And everyone who advocates nuclear energy should be put on a list of liquidators to clean up the inevitable catastrophic failure which IS inevitable.

Levelized studies show offshore wind is very cost effective.

@@AORD72 Wind power requires a massive amount of copper for the cabling to connect them to the power-grid. Wind is a lower-density power source, barely better than solar. One would need to cover the ocean between the UK and Greenland to even achieve a fraction of the UK's power needs.

took me 35 years to grow a forest got knocked down in an afternoon

Dead planet means no bills to pay because?... no people. AND everyone who advocates nuclear energy should be put on a list of liquidators to clean up the inevitable catastrophic failure which IS inevitable.

Every single nation in this world can in theory fullfill all its energy needs with only a tiny fraction of the sun power it receives. The big problem is that the sun doesn't always shine. And the problem with wind energy is of course that the wind doesn't always blow. But combine the two and add some hydorelectric, geothermic and biomass fueled power plants to cover the slack when there's neither enough sun nor wind and we should have a viable solution. I wouldn't actually completely rule out nuclear power either. I am sceptical but there have been some recent development in technology that may make them much safer and, perhaps most important, not nearly as devastating even if they fail. --- Of course, there is another huge "problem". The big fossil fuel producers don't want to loose their profits and they have a *lot* of power and influence in the world. This is by far the biggest reason why the development of alternative energy sources is so slow.

@@tessjuel I personally wouldn't want nuclear power when their are plenty of alternatives ! Solar alone fulfills all my power requirements... People need to just think outside the box and not rely on governments to make it right.. My home runs off a 12volt system. I have 430 watts of solar that comfortably powers my lifestyle all year round except in summer when I have excess power. My set up cost me 1200 pounds and I've had it for 17 years having only replaced my power storage unit once which cost 300 pounds. I live in the heart of the UK.

How much energy does it require to create these wind machines? Include upkeep. Do the math.

there is one reason.... over population. Population Matters, once known as Optimum Population Trust worked out that the max population for Britain in a fossil free world, is just 30 million. That was a while ago, and technology advances, which might increase that total, but the point remains valid. Keep adding millions to the population makes energy independence much harder to achieve.

The more wind farms the more gaz.

@@GardenandGreen Overpopulation? lol Britain already supplies 46% of its energy via renewables and that's while nuclear and oil are using lobbyists to corrupt and manipulate politicians for profit motivations. We could easily support all 67 million Brits with renewables if the Tories hadn't cut funding for energy-saving technology and renewable energy construction. As for overpopulation in general, we have multimillionaires using the same resources as a small country on a daily basis, the problem is not overpopulation but greed and logistics...

@@richardmaclean4519 not as much as you'd think

How much energy does it take to install pipelines under the sea to transport gas; build coal power plants, dig out the coal, transport it via rail etc? Do the math

Renewable energy is a virtuous circle, as the more that is made, the more it used when manufacturing things like wind turbines.

@@hhheello does a pipeline under the sea randomly self destruct cuz they used cheapass chinese parts that are unrecyclable?

@@GardenandGreen it's a fraction of the price of current energy mix but hey stick to your fossil manifesto

@@SlowhandGreg Well, I for one, am sticking to my fossil fuel manifesto, because I'm pretty keen on our ships, tanks & planes actually being able to defend us. They say there are no atheists in a fox hole - I'm betting there are no renewable energy advocates either.

thats not how it works buddy

Sure, lets cool the hot molten core that makes sure our planet turns around.

@@Mike-ox8sq Humanity can not cool it even if we only use geo energy.

@@Mike-ox8sq it is a very good point, worth considering. However I suspect that the energy in the core would be so great that humanity won't have an effect. Plus energy from the core is lost naturally to space, we would be capturing this energy. And I believe that the energy in the core is constantly constantly being replenished, perhaps by core fusion? and electromagnetic radiation like neutrinos. Would be interesting to see the percentage of neutrinos the core blocks.

How much energy does it require to create these wind machines? Include upkeep. Do the math.

Only need 3,000 offshore wind turbines to produce 75% of UK electricity 3,000 sounds like a lot But across the while UK seas is mot much at all

when they're replaced with EV birds, they can program the robo-birds to not fly into the towers. ;/

@@PNWAffliction millions of birds die flying into buildings and get eaten by cats stop spewing fossil industry crap

Both? And energy mix from different sources is cheapest and most secure

Onshore wind farms are nowhere near the water... They don't have to be on the coast.

Please read your comment and have a word with yourself birds fly everywhere

Cats kill 100 times more birds than wind turbines.

@@haydnbrewer7426 gfy thanks👌🏻✌🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Clown 🤡

Wow! I have been on the internet for many years but now I truly have seen the absolute dumbest comment ever.

lol gtfo of here

The amount of fossil fuel currently burned to produce one´s and zero´s are idiotic and counterproductive in relation to any goal that makes sense for mankind to pursue! Cryptocurrency production currently use more energy than many smaller but industrialized nations. It should be banned. Your stance are equal to being an enemy of humanity. Your stance threatens the very habitat that brought us forward as a species!