Cave_Troll
Active member
One of them looked suspiciously like Huw, our friendly neighbourhood caver / greenpeace activist.
Anti Nuclear protests in the news today
- Thread starter Cave_Troll
- Start date
D
darkplaces
Guest
tree huggin hippys
SamT
Moderator
Personally - I dont think nuclear is such a bad think (unless its in the form of a bomb).
Its actually very clean compared with the MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE problem we have with fossil fuels. Which - by all accounts *WILL* run out in our life time.
How did the protesters travel to the place - bet it was by car. f*** the atomosphere - who needs that.
With nuclear - its all about the waste management. If enough money is invested in that side of things then its a much better option than nearly all other solutions.
Id rather see a couple of well run Nuclear power stations that see the last of our very precious wilderness abosolutly dessimated by wind farms. i.e. the outer hebrides. Its going to happen - Lewis and Harris are earmarked for almost total coverage. And to what end - they'll provide a tiny fraction of the amount of energy needed.
Of course - there are lots of other ways the government could successfully reduce energy usage massivly.
How about every new barrat/red row home being built with solar panels on the roof and a rack of batteries in the cellar. Provides enough energy for the entire home and can even sold back to the national grid on very sunny days. Easy peasy, just change the building regs.
Do we acutally need street lights on every damned moterway in Britain. Your car has headlights dont it. Ever flown into britain at night. Not much dark patches copared with sodium orange. What a waste. Oh and thats another thing - cheap airline tickets - very very bad. Still - Im off snowboarding this winter - are you, or do you fancy some cheap caving in sovenia.
Dont get me wrong - I think Green Peace are a fantastic institution and they work they carry out is massivly important. I would just like to know thier basis for being so vearmently apposed to nuclear power. is it the uranium mining they object to. the waste disposal aspect - the terrorist threat - none of which are any worse than the current situation. And what do they propose we do when the oil runs out.
Its actually very clean compared with the MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE problem we have with fossil fuels. Which - by all accounts *WILL* run out in our life time.
How did the protesters travel to the place - bet it was by car. f*** the atomosphere - who needs that.
With nuclear - its all about the waste management. If enough money is invested in that side of things then its a much better option than nearly all other solutions.
Id rather see a couple of well run Nuclear power stations that see the last of our very precious wilderness abosolutly dessimated by wind farms. i.e. the outer hebrides. Its going to happen - Lewis and Harris are earmarked for almost total coverage. And to what end - they'll provide a tiny fraction of the amount of energy needed.
Of course - there are lots of other ways the government could successfully reduce energy usage massivly.
How about every new barrat/red row home being built with solar panels on the roof and a rack of batteries in the cellar. Provides enough energy for the entire home and can even sold back to the national grid on very sunny days. Easy peasy, just change the building regs.
Do we acutally need street lights on every damned moterway in Britain. Your car has headlights dont it. Ever flown into britain at night. Not much dark patches copared with sodium orange. What a waste. Oh and thats another thing - cheap airline tickets - very very bad. Still - Im off snowboarding this winter - are you, or do you fancy some cheap caving in sovenia.
Dont get me wrong - I think Green Peace are a fantastic institution and they work they carry out is massivly important. I would just like to know thier basis for being so vearmently apposed to nuclear power. is it the uranium mining they object to. the waste disposal aspect - the terrorist threat - none of which are any worse than the current situation. And what do they propose we do when the oil runs out.
D
darkplaces
Guest
I think nuclear power stations are the way to go. Only by doing will we learn 'on the way' to deal with the problem of disposal, we may even find a process to clean it up totally or nearly in 10 years time!
What I would like to see is it made easier to create energy locally like a wind turbine on your roof or solar cells or bring back waterwheels! How many pubs have you been to with a lovly river next to them which used to have a water wheel or has buildings just right to slap a nice wooden 'old world style' water wheel on. Some clever engineering and batterys and the pub becomes a recharging stations, not just you and beer but for your phone, laptop, electric car, enjoying the free light in the evening would be nice...
What I would like to see is it made easier to create energy locally like a wind turbine on your roof or solar cells or bring back waterwheels! How many pubs have you been to with a lovly river next to them which used to have a water wheel or has buildings just right to slap a nice wooden 'old world style' water wheel on. Some clever engineering and batterys and the pub becomes a recharging stations, not just you and beer but for your phone, laptop, electric car, enjoying the free light in the evening would be nice...
SamT
Moderator
Of course I dont, Im as hypocritical as most of the population.
but I try to walk to work when I can - and drive a relativly efficient car - not some V6 5.8 litre 4X4 wank mobile.
What I was trying to get at is its all very well protesting against a proposed replacement for fossil fuels (which we need very badly) but what do they suggest as a REALISTIC alternative.
No one has yet to say whty they think Nuclear is such a bad idea. Not perfect, but then non of the available solutions are really.
Err - I guess investment in research and technology, The government has masses of money, they just need to direct it in the right way. If they decide to replace fossil fuel with nuclear - then one would hope that they invest enough money in sorting out what to do with the waste.
Not that Im suggesting I have any faith in the government though. So long as tony gets his new luxury jet, Blair force 1, Im sure he'll be happy.
but I try to walk to work when I can - and drive a relativly efficient car - not some V6 5.8 litre 4X4 wank mobile.
What I was trying to get at is its all very well protesting against a proposed replacement for fossil fuels (which we need very badly) but what do they suggest as a REALISTIC alternative.
No one has yet to say whty they think Nuclear is such a bad idea. Not perfect, but then non of the available solutions are really.
Err - I guess investment in research and technology, The government has masses of money, they just need to direct it in the right way. If they decide to replace fossil fuel with nuclear - then one would hope that they invest enough money in sorting out what to do with the waste.
Not that Im suggesting I have any faith in the government though. So long as tony gets his new luxury jet, Blair force 1, Im sure he'll be happy.
AndyF
New member
SamT said:
There is a good reason that no private company has ever built one, it's the decommisioning costs. The govt (who strangely seem to always pick uo the tab) have just allocated 56 Billion (yes BILLION) pounds to cleaning up the mess from the 60's and 70's. Thats our money BTW..
Think what that could have done for renewables...
That could give every family in the country £3000 to spend on insulation, double glazing and actually reducing fuel use, rather than just trying to figue out how to meet increasing demand...
The costs of nuclear are astronomical....
Brains
Well-known member
...just remeber that the v6 4x4 wank mobile will have a smaller carbon impact in its life than a passenger flight to go snowboarding! The true cost of air travel is well hidden but also expensive. And, if you your 4x4 is an old one, you are also saving its disposal cost and replacement with a new vehicle costs. Me, I would quite happily see air travel charged at its true cost and less media hype and frenzy on many subjects.
The first casualty in many an argument is often the truth!!
The first casualty in many an argument is often the truth!!
graham
New member
AndyF said:Brains said:
Air travel is charged at true cost..... it's motoring that is artificially expensive due to taxation...
If car travel was cheap, I'd drive to France Better for the environment, but the taxation system makes to cheaper to fly.
That's because the airlines pay absobloodylutely nothing towards undoing any of the damage that they do.
AndyF
New member
graham said:
<rant>
I must say I don't understand this concept of "paying" to undo the damage caused. The govt use the phrase "the polluter pays"...
You can pay as much tax as you want, but it does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Its nothing to do with paying...
Take "landfill tax". It does nothing to reduce the amount of waste produced, it's just makes people export waste to China because it's cheaper than burying it here.
Making people pay does not help the environment, changes in policy (both personal and governmental) do.
Thats why I don't buy Australian wine, or Canadian Chedder or New Zealand butter because of the carbon fotprint it carries. I buy local goods where possible.
Why are we discussing how nuclear may be used to meet energy requirements, when we should be discussing how the net UK energy consumption can be reduced....?
</rant>
it's o.k, calm now...I'm due my medication soon... :shock:
D
darkplaces
Guest
By not breeding like idiots and by not paying people to breed, like this goverment insists on doing. An off topic gripe I have of dont have kids till you can afford them but thats a different topic...AndyF said:
We have two problems;
How do we power industry - Large amounts of power needed = NUKE
How do we power individuals/small groups - Smaller amounts of power needed = Local renewable power systems like sun, wind, water.
Its a two pronged attack that is needed and the likes of greenbits havent answered the industry question - just think how much power does an ISP require to run all its routers/switches. Buildings full of these things exist every few tens of miles. Hospitals! Blimy how the heck to you power hospitals with a couple of wind machines and solar pannels - You may replace every builb with a power saving one in a hospital but its still going to need a lot of power.
SamT
Moderator
Im in total agreement with most of the points made so far. But I still havent heard something that makes me think - wow, Nuclear power is awefull and should be banished from our world.
Ok Decomissioning is expensive. But that is to decommision 1950's crap - and lets face it, most stuff built in the 50's was pile. I reckon the engineers are a little more savvy these days (I hope) and will be designing better/more efficient/safer/cheaper stations.
Im sure with the right investment in technology that the problem of the waste can be dealt with.
Im a massive supporter of reduced energy usage. Nothing is really being done by the government. Their policy of pay more for the privalage (e.g. the proposed tax increase on urban 4*4s) doesnt work and the ethos of that is all wrong anyway. People just fund their consumer desires using credit. All very good for the economy but shite for our environment.
People deffo need to wake up to the problems we are facing.
Im still curious as to why nuclear cannot be considered as a major contributer.
Sure - get as much renewable stuff going on i.e. solar power on all households, water and wind on a small scale local level. But im sure that it will still not make a dent in the energy deficite we are about to see.
Im not a fan of wind farms and I wouldnt want to see the hope valley flooded to make way for hydro power.
Ok Decomissioning is expensive. But that is to decommision 1950's crap - and lets face it, most stuff built in the 50's was pile. I reckon the engineers are a little more savvy these days (I hope) and will be designing better/more efficient/safer/cheaper stations.
Im sure with the right investment in technology that the problem of the waste can be dealt with.
Im a massive supporter of reduced energy usage. Nothing is really being done by the government. Their policy of pay more for the privalage (e.g. the proposed tax increase on urban 4*4s) doesnt work and the ethos of that is all wrong anyway. People just fund their consumer desires using credit. All very good for the economy but shite for our environment.
People deffo need to wake up to the problems we are facing.
Im still curious as to why nuclear cannot be considered as a major contributer.
Sure - get as much renewable stuff going on i.e. solar power on all households, water and wind on a small scale local level. But im sure that it will still not make a dent in the energy deficite we are about to see.
Im not a fan of wind farms and I wouldnt want to see the hope valley flooded to make way for hydro power.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Everyone's missing the main point. It isn't about power, it's about population. World population has increased ten fold in the last 150 years and is going to exceed 10billion by 2050. Fuel demand will outstrip supply by the end of 2009 and the poor will be priced out of the market, leading to increasing examples of unalleviable extinctions such as Darfur, Kashmir etc.. There is no solution other than to get used to it.
Hughie
Active member
This problem really is a global issue. Cap'n'Chris is right - the human race is going to strip the earth of it's natural resources very quickly.
Closer to home though, political thinking needs to change, as does our societies attitude. It strikes me as a very selfish, greedy and lazy society at the mo.
No single source of power generation is going to succeed - but a combination of nuke, solar, hydro, wind & bio might. My thoughts are that solar panels should be compulsory on any new build, and should be well subsidised for a retro fit.
Another point that hasn't yet been mentioned is power for transport, such as road haulage. Fossil fuel such as diesel could be partially replaced by biofuel - or vegetable oil. 25 acres of oilseed rape can produce 10,000 litres of fuel (which is way more than the litres used to produce it, incidentally). Currently, under present legislation, farmers have to put 8% of their arable area into "set-aside" ie it sits there doing nothing. Defra even insist that any growth on this land is cut. I'm not sure of the national area that goes into "set-aside" but it must be colossal. It strikes me that this is a huge wasted opportunity. Also, the govt have just increased the fuel duty from 27.1p/litre to 47.1p/litre on these fuels, just to be really helpful.
The public need to change their ways - it's very easy to save power. Walking/cycling when possible - resource conservant as well as healthy. Turn down the heating thermostats. How many people do you know that have really hot houses and are wandering around in t-shirts? Cars with only one occupant?
The list is endless - and I fear - insurmountable. Even our political lords & masters are happy to crow about reduced carbon emissions - but only because they've outsourced industry to other countries to utilise cheap labour - which in turn makes them more resource hungry - take China for example.
None of us want to see picturesque valleys flooded, islands covered in wind farms, tidal barrages, new nuclear stations (with no clear way of waste disposal) BUT if we want prevent long term catastrophe then we need to start getting used to the idea of all these things being around.
We could of course carry on as have been, do nothing, say it's somebody elses problem, and enjoy things as they are - which won't be for long!!
Me - I think we're F%*ked!!
I'm off to drive my tractor whilst there's fuel in the tank.
Closer to home though, political thinking needs to change, as does our societies attitude. It strikes me as a very selfish, greedy and lazy society at the mo.
No single source of power generation is going to succeed - but a combination of nuke, solar, hydro, wind & bio might. My thoughts are that solar panels should be compulsory on any new build, and should be well subsidised for a retro fit.
Another point that hasn't yet been mentioned is power for transport, such as road haulage. Fossil fuel such as diesel could be partially replaced by biofuel - or vegetable oil. 25 acres of oilseed rape can produce 10,000 litres of fuel (which is way more than the litres used to produce it, incidentally). Currently, under present legislation, farmers have to put 8% of their arable area into "set-aside" ie it sits there doing nothing. Defra even insist that any growth on this land is cut. I'm not sure of the national area that goes into "set-aside" but it must be colossal. It strikes me that this is a huge wasted opportunity. Also, the govt have just increased the fuel duty from 27.1p/litre to 47.1p/litre on these fuels, just to be really helpful.
The public need to change their ways - it's very easy to save power. Walking/cycling when possible - resource conservant as well as healthy. Turn down the heating thermostats. How many people do you know that have really hot houses and are wandering around in t-shirts? Cars with only one occupant?
The list is endless - and I fear - insurmountable. Even our political lords & masters are happy to crow about reduced carbon emissions - but only because they've outsourced industry to other countries to utilise cheap labour - which in turn makes them more resource hungry - take China for example.
None of us want to see picturesque valleys flooded, islands covered in wind farms, tidal barrages, new nuclear stations (with no clear way of waste disposal) BUT if we want prevent long term catastrophe then we need to start getting used to the idea of all these things being around.
We could of course carry on as have been, do nothing, say it's somebody elses problem, and enjoy things as they are - which won't be for long!!
Me - I think we're F%*ked!!
I'm off to drive my tractor whilst there's fuel in the tank.
pisshead
New member
Hughie said:
I agree with all your points except this bit - i'd have to look it up to be specific, but there are many good reason for setting aside land - it protects our wildlife - not just plants, but the insects, birds and animals that live in them and the birds, animals that live off those...etc etc. Do we want to kill off all of the wildlife?
Those strips of set aside land support something like the top ten most endangered plants in britain, because hedgrows etc. are an archaic population of species that now only exist in these set aside areas.
Humans don't have some right to destroy everything in our path just to get what we want.
[/rant]
