-
Problem is when they make a noise they are often wrong- did you not see their stance on Nuclear Fusion which was laughable?
They had all the basic principles wrong but were barking at it because it involved the word Nuclear.
Which incidentally is pretty much our only hope now it would seem, if Greenpeace don't have their way in other areas- for example not allowing other countries to industrealise etc.
Agreed, Greenpeace, who started with some very good principles have become an ideological inerrantist cul-de-sac.
When they say XXXX/s (GMOs, Nuclear fusion, pesticides, herbicides . . .and so on) are bad for the environment - ostensibly this would seem to be a scientific claim, but they have long past the rigour of intellectual honesty - they are simply 'true-belivers' who will not entertain any ideas that transgress their sacred tenets - regardless of evidence - simply put their position is no longer evidence based / scientific it is an ideological / political position.
-
I'm an environmentalist, but also (hopefully) a pragmatist. I don't think that we will be able to get all of our energy from renewables, so everything does have to be on the table.
My problem with nuclear is two-fold. Firstly, the enormous cost of clean-up. I'll take your word for it that, dealt with properly, the waste is fairly benign. However, last year, a report by the National Audit Office came out suggesting that it will cost £73 billion to decommission the UK's old nuclear sites. I think this is staggering - and surely suggests that nuclear is too expensive. (That's just the clean up, not the building of the plants, running, etc, etc).
Source is here if you're interested - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7215688.stm
Then there's the sticky politics surrounding the plants themselves. The government may want to start building new reactors around the UK, but the length of time it'll take them to get through the planning stages (years and years of local residents' objections, etc) let alone build times means the UK will hit the looming energy gap with barely any new nuclear plants, no real investment in renewables, and no North Sea gas to burn in our gas-fired plants!
-
Agreed, Greenpeace, who started with some very good principles have become an ideological inerrantist cul-de-sac.
When they say XXXX/s (GMOs, Nuclear fusion, pesticides, herbicides . . .and so on) are bad for the environment - ostensibly this would seem to be a scientific claim, but they have long past the rigour of intellectual honesty - they are simply 'true-belivers' who will not entertain any ideas that transgress their sacred tenets - regardless of evidence - simply put their position is no longer evidence based / scientific it is an ideological / political position.
totally agree. plus motherfucking one.
-
Yes, it is very expensive, but what other option do we have? In an ideal world, we would have infinite cheap oil, but at the same time reserves are depleting, parts of the developing world are acquiring a raging thirst for it, pushing prices up all across the board. That's not to mention the ecological damage brought about by harmful emissions.
Realistically, I expect the cost will put governments off investing in the technology, at least until they come down to viable levels. We will continue to depend on oil for the forseeable future, with some investment in renewables, but token amounts. We'll find new sources of oil which should hopefully keep prices stable, but whatever happens, it's only delaying the inevitable. Eventually the price of oil will become prohibitive because there will be so little left. Are we really hoping that by the time oil reserves are depleted, some new energy source will be found?
-
It really annoys me when narrow minded eco warriors put their blinkers on with nuclear energy, and instead choose to espouse the virtues of renewables. It solves so many problems we have nowadays! This isn't the 1960's any more, aren't fighting a war with the Soviets. Times have moved on.
breaking news.
-
Are we really hoping that by the time oil reserves are depleted, some new energy source will be found?
hoping is what the entire oil industry does. it hopes to find more reserves like Saudi (unlikely) and hopes that a new equivalent to oil as an enegy source will be found (unlikely).
Frankly i don't think they even care, especially the highly paid company controllers, as long as the money keeps rolling in and their pensions are up to date.
The future as i see it involves very expensive (very rare) oil vs very expensive alternative energy sources battling it out head to head, which is interesting since it will force all to use less and become more economical in almost every way.Eventually oil will become much more expensive than the alternative energy sources and oil will be relegated to the history books.
But still, the alternatives will still be very much more expensive than oil and laughably, at the moment,most of the alternatives at some level or other depend on oil or gas for it's current production cost. Without oil it's likely to be even higher.Energy is important now, and we all know it, of course, but it's a given commodity we all take for granted.
The future will have much more focus on energy in everyday life, because it will be a lot more difficult to get.As always the poor will suffer greatly whilst the rich will plod on as normal. That at least will stay the same.
I myself don't want to be around when much of the western world start bullying the other countries for oil in desperate need for oil that our economies and social structures rely on so heavily. I have a feeling it ain't going to be nice for anybody. -
Thorium is an interesting proposition.
Theriously?
-
We need nuclear the sums don't add up with out it. We need to start building new power station now, alternative technology do not yet exist. Yes have some more wave power wind e.t.c but we will still need nuclear. We need lotss of diffrent forms of energy production all added together to satisfy our energy needs and nuclear needs to be part of that.. Life isn't always about the best solution but the least worst.
-
This is the book. I was on about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/30/david-mckay-sustainable-energy
-
Don't worry guys, we have oil for decades yet to come, Northern Canadian tar sands, uneconomical and very dirty to extract now but as the easy to recover oil runs out..
Another reason we are going to look back in 30-40 years and feel like fools for having missed the Nuclear boat.
Blame Canada!
-
The subject of energy supply is on You and yours today @12:00.
-
The subject of energy supply is on You and yours today @12:00.
on now for those who can listen to the radio or online.
-
My problem with nuclear is two-fold. Firstly, the enormous cost of clean-up. I'll take your word for it that, dealt with properly, the waste is fairly benign. However, last year, a report by the National Audit Office came out suggesting that it will cost £73 billion to decommission the UK's old nuclear sites. I think this is staggering - and surely suggests that nuclear is too expensive. (That's just the clean up, not the building of the plants, running, etc, etc).
Source is here if you're interested - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7215688.stm
Then there's the sticky politics surrounding the plants themselves. The government may want to start building new reactors around the UK, but the length of time it'll take them to get through the planning stages (years and years of local residents' objections, etc) let alone build times means the UK will hit the looming energy gap with barely any new nuclear plants, no real investment in renewables, and no North Sea gas to burn in our gas-fired plants!
An answer to your first point:
In the nuclear section ‘Economics of cleanup’ you are correct that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has an annual budget of around £2bn for the next 25 years. However, some 65% of this will be spent on cleaning up Sellafield in West Cumbria; this has never been a significant power generation facility and the vast majority of the clean up costs are associated with legacy wastes associated with plutonium production for weapons in the 1950s and 60s. Therefore, the costs that you quote are in reality not quite such a ‘hefty subsidy’ as your estimate. The current generation of stations also claim that they have been designed for decommissioning (therefore will be cheaper to decommission) and their higher operating efficiencies will produce less spent fuel waste per kWh generated.
Thank you very much for this correction. Coincidentally I also received exactly the same information today from another source, who told me in great detail what a mess the Sellafield weapons site is!from http://beta.metafaq.com/faq/mackay/wha/ (a Q&A site relating to the links below).
I agree with your second point, but serious change is coming one way or another, we need to start working now and hard to shape it.
This is the book. I was on about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/30/david-mckay-sustainable-energy
Woo hoo! Another fan! I'll repeat the direct link to the author's website where you can read it for free: www.withouthotair.com
I think this is a seriously awesome book. It answers many of the questions raised in this thread, it gives you the tools to work it out for yourself, it is impressively even-handed, and it is so clear and readable. I cannot recommend it enough.
tynan
naatm
lpg
Bernhard
Dylan
plurabelle
TheBrick(Tommy)
|³|MA3K
swedeee
Balki
Gatorman
hael
moth-
Post a reply
About
Greenpeace on the roof
Posted by
for the record, i am a physicist in training and radioactivity is one of my favourites.[/QUOTE]
and mine, lets keep it a happy debate, even if we are all fucked
YouTube - Kraftwerk - Radio-Activity (Extended Version) 1975