We the government fast track Nuclear power station thingy being approved, it looks like we could be recieving a number of new nuclear power stations over the next decade or so.

Friends of the Earth have naturally come out and said that this is bad for the planet, but is this method of power generation the most viable option available to the UK, assuming we never get the offshore wind farms really going.

The argument against nuclear power is obvious - it's dangerous (see: Chernobyl) and leaves behind vast amounts of nasty waste product.

But.......is it? Chernobyl was nasty, but it's been the only recorded case of a plant melting down in this manner - 3 Mile Island and the Windscale Fire are 'minor' in comparison.

And if there is lots of nuclear waste product being generated from existing power stations, wouldn't that mean a lot more fuss being made about it by FOTE?

:D

At no point did I say that you would have trouble finding fools that are easily parted from their money - what I said is that having a home turbine won't help reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And you did say:


What you're suggesting is akin to blowing your nose more often in an attempt to lose weight and get a better voice. Yes your nose will never be bunged up and your voice will thus sound clearer, but that's it.


It would still be ineffective. The 0.016% is if everyone who can helps with a teaspoon.

We need pumps and hull repairs. Teaspoons are a waste of time and effort:

inference.phy.cam.ac.uk

iain - you wont win this one for the simple reason that....


if i use less electricity, then i am personally not creating as much CO2 - urgo i HAVE reduced MY carbon footprint.

if i use less electricity by, always turning lights off as i leave a room, not leaving stuff on standby OR by fitting a solar panel/wind turbine - it doesn't matter, i will still be using less electricity - thus reducing MY personal carbon footprint.

im not, nor ever have been talking about the effect globally, infact it started off about offsetting the cost of buying solar panells and wind turbines against the money they save you and the value they add to your property - nothing to do with CO2.

so ner :P

The problem there is that all this super new technology has a massive carbon footprint to make it in the first place. Like making gold from base metals is possible but the process costs more than just buying some gold in the first place.

A Pyrrhic victory or whatever Stephen Fry would say. Were this QI.

Even more annoying is that if you live in a garage or shed or somewhere more decent with neon lighting I think it uses more electricity to turn them off and then back on again than it would just leaving them on (for a certain period of time).

In short, we're all fucked. Head for high ground.

danny that was about spot on mate ;)

erm.... is it?

Nuclear energy actually has the lowest death rate of a range of electricity generation technologies
(see Ch 24 Page 168: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air). The main problem is the high capital cost and the time it takes before revenue is returned.

... plus if there are a couple of accidents, we may actually start to get some of the super heroes and villains i've been reading about in comics for years. fuckin sweet. double win

and the mess and cost of mining uranium

is it any worse than mining for coal or materials for turbines, or locating and extracting gas and oil?

quite possibly not, but it is likely to happen in poorer countries and you wonder how much will be done to look after the local community in those areas. Also, there are the energy costs involved in the mining which again you could argue are no worse than those for gas or coal, but aren't we meant to be trying to move away from all that?

You need much smaller quantities to provide high energy yields, so it could be seen as a kind of move away from "all that".


like oil in UAE? I wonder what sort of lives they would be leading without it.

havent all the banks just pulled out of there and screwed it all up?


funny country, its illegal to be in debt, so when poeple get close they abandon their home and car and just get on a plane and leave.

yes, a few people got very rich off it, but the majority remained very poor.

Even in Dubai? somehow I can't believe that: surely there were hundreds of tourist based entrepreneurial enterprisers that got rich from having a wealthy country, weren't there? Either way the entire country benefited from having local oil resources, whether only a few got rich or not.

No oil in Dubai.

oh. I'll be quiet then :)

apart from this last thing:

If

, then why would mining for other materials, or searching for gas and oil be any different?

Are there any forms of energy recovery that don't use any materials at all that would be mined or manufactured in poorer countries?

no jim you're right, dubai is a great example.


all the hotels, appartments, houses, golf courses, restaurants and all the other bollocks they are (were) building out there, crerated jobs, not only in the building but in the running and maintaining of these properties, which can only help to enrich the local community by providing people with jobs.

the money that built dubai came from oil, so if it is there or not means fuck all.