Merrick
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 30, 2005, 20:35
|
By producing electricity from non-fossil sources, the Romney Marsh wind farm will prevent the annual release of 130,000 tonnes of CO2.
Sounds like a lot.
It's less than a third of what a single jumbo jet doing the London-Miami run emits.
A society that permits passenger aviation and private cars is simply not interested in having sustainable energy.
|
Merrick
|
problems with nukes
Oct 31, 2005, 00:28
|
With nukes it's not just the waste - radioactive enough to be lethal for 20,000 years and more - but also the expense, several times more than coal or gas (and that's factoring in selling by-products to the weapons industry.
Also, it's uninsurable - the risks are so great that any clean-up cost will be borne by the tax payer.
With each new power station and facility, you increase the chances of an accident.
Also, despite Lord Sainsbury calling it a 'renewable' energy source, its fuel is uranium, a rare mineral of which there is a finite supply.
All of it, incidentally, overseas, giving the lie to the 'nukes mean less reliance on foreign countries for our energy' bullshit.
There simply is no way to sustain the energy thirst of this generation and its predecessor. The longer we deny that, the worse mess we're in when the crunch comes and the worse mess we leave behind us. As if climate change wasn't bad enough, now it seems we're going to leave the maximum amount of radioactive waste.
Meanwhile energy efficency moves are ignored because they don't consume enough - not burning as much means less economic growth, and we can't have that can we?
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 11:00
|
The public could help a lot by using less leccy.
I know I'm very naive and a bit thick too, but wouldn't it be a very simple and effective thing for the govt to have an ongoing 'let's save lots of resources' drive? When they did the Switch Off Something now campaign in the 70s that was very effective. It needn't be so drastic as that, but surely it is the govt's responsiblity to educate people about the vast quantities of needless use and to encourage people to use less electricity (well, less of everything really, but leccy is a good place to start). Or would that just give the impression that they are not able to supply our needs and there for not a very good govt?
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 11:22
|
Actually, Merrick goes into exactly what the problem is there, here:
http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2005/10/power-to-people.html
|
Merrick
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 11:26
|
You're dead right - drastically reducing demand is the only solution to the energy crisis.
Unfortunately, people consuming less means less economic growth, and eventually economic contraction. And economic growth is what they prize far above sustainability, justice or sense.
As Blair has said;
"The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem."
And, more chillingly;
"if we put forward, as a solution to climate change, something which involves drastic cuts in growth or standards of living, it matters not how justified it is, it simply won't be agreed to."
Think about that, 'it matters not how justified it is'.
The government want a large, profitable for big business solution, so they're backing nukes.
Reducing consumption and switching to renewable sources is the only sustainable way forward. Using renewables doesn't necessarily mean other grand ideas like wind farms, but micro-generation where people have small wind turbines, solar panels and whatnot directly on their house so they don't lose any power in the distance between generation and transmission.
Reducing consumption doesn't just mean switching things off, it can also take the form of efficiency measures. In opposition, Labour promised they'd reduce VAT on energy conservation materials. We pay 5% VAT on fuel but 17.5% on insulation, thermostats, etc; effectively, we have a tax regime that encourages energy use and penalises conservation.
Once in power, they maintained the promise for a yearor two, Gordon Brown even declaring it in his pre-budget speech in 1998 as something he was about to deliver.
They've still not done it. Not enough consumption in conservation.
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 11:42
|
|
Blair and his gang - greedy and grasping as much as the rest of them. Is it really too much too expect a leader to have wise vision and honourable ideals?
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 12:29
|
|
Not if you want to do it forever - its not sustainable at all.
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 12:29
|
|
Not if you want to do it forever - its not sustainable at all.
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 12:29
|
|
Not if you want to do it forever - its not sustainable at all.
|
shamanic miner
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 13:42
|
> 130,000 tonnes of CO2.
> It's less than a third of what a single jumbo jet doing the London-Miami run emits.
I assume you're talking about per year or something? Otherwise they would have to be some big old planes... :-)
|
