|
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html
At last some sense. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Medway Handyman wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Yup. Its teh single thing the government could do to invest money for the future, create jobs and save the planet. I hear BT has backed out of its windfarm project too. No longer profitable now the subsidies have changed.. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "The Medway Handyman" saying something like: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Thank **** for that. Maybe now we can get down to the real nitty gritty. Where do I hand my meter in to? |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Medway Handyman wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
In message , John Rumm
wrote The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...lear-power-yes -please-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... They will be telling us next that wind turbines on urban domestic houses don't work :) -- Alan news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:58:39 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... But the French haven't... No doubt we are heading for a load more wild cat strikes when specialist foreign workers are brought in. -- Cheers Dave. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On 23 Feb, 19:21, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...uclear-power-y... At last some sense. -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Not that renewables are a simple answer either as we'd need country sized solutions based on wind or wave or whatever to supply our ever increasing energy demand. Really we need to address our energy usage. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:04:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Yup. Its teh single thing the government could do to invest money for the future, create jobs and save the planet. I hear BT has backed out of its windfarm project too. No longer profitable now the subsidies have changed.. But we sold off the bit that makes nuclear power plants... -- http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. But not too much. The Green Party is little more than CND in disguise and Charles Goodall's position as their propective parliamentary candidate for Oxford West is now under threat. -- Roger Chapman |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Calvin wrote: On 23 Feb, 19:21, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...uclear-power-y... At last some sense. -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Not that renewables are a simple answer either as we'd need country sized solutions based on wind or wave or whatever to supply our ever increasing energy demand. Really we need to address our energy usage. Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC. Uranium -- Plutonium + Power, then lots of Cumbrian jobs, then Plutonium -- Something-I-can't-remember + power, then.... R. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"John Rumm" wrote in message et... The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... Yes now we will get some nasty PWR reactors that go to meltdown in about 500 milliseconds rather than the AGRs we were developing that take about three days to get to meltdown. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"Calvin" wrote in message ... In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. We aren't burning Uranium ATM. The last lot of fuel rods I saw being loaded were plutonium oxide pellets. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Quite a lot of decades before we run out of plutonium and we can always make some more if we build another fast breeder. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Calvin wrote:
On 23 Feb, 19:21, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...uclear-power-y... At last some sense. -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Not that renewables are a simple answer either as we'd need country sized solutions based on wind or wave or whatever to supply our ever increasing energy demand. Really we need to address our energy usage. Fission is the stopgap to fusion, or to a 90% loss in world population. Renewables will never work cost effectively..energy density is way to low. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
mogga wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:04:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Yup. Its teh single thing the government could do to invest money for the future, create jobs and save the planet. I hear BT has backed out of its windfarm project too. No longer profitable now the subsidies have changed.. But we sold off the bit that makes nuclear power plants... I know. And I made a nice little bit on that too.. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Roger wrote:
The message from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. But not too much. The Green Party is little more than CND in disguise and Charles Goodall's position as their propective parliamentary candidate for Oxford West is now under threat. So what? no one cares about what the lunatic fringe is doing unless it actually impinges on mainstream policy. The whole anti-nuclear power thing goes right back to CND when bearded real ale swilling muesli eating earth mothers were unable to distinguish between weapons grade plutonium and moderately enriched uranium, or a bomb and a power station. Ably assisted by their russian friends, who knew that the early power stations were as much for breeding plutonium as generating power.. We've moved on a bit... Anyway, a quick nuclear exchange between Tehran and Tel Aviv would solve all the problems in the middle east. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:58:39 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... There's the Candu reactor - best in the world 20+ years ago and has had some development (from Canada). -- Peter. You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion? It's not rocket science, you know. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:04:51 -0800 (PST), Calvin wrote:
On 23 Feb, 19:21, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...uclear-power-y... At last some sense. -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Not that renewables are a simple answer either as we'd need country sized solutions based on wind or wave or whatever to supply our ever increasing energy demand. Really we need to address our energy usage. Fusion is the answer, so we are told - when the Sun goes nova we'll have all the energy needed. -- Peter. You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion? It's not rocket science, you know. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:58:39 +0000, John Rumm
wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... That's easily solved in the short term. Chuck another environmentalist on the fire and give it a good poke with a heavy metal object. They are current carbon cycle and so effectively carbon neutral. High in energy content and burning them reduces overall noxious emissions plus it increases the speed of economic development by reducing public planning enquiries. Plus if you nobble a fat one and like pork scratchings...... -- |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
mogga wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:04:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Yup. Its teh single thing the government could do to invest money for the future, create jobs and save the planet. I hear BT has backed out of its windfarm project too. No longer profitable now the subsidies have changed.. But we sold off the bit that makes nuclear power plants... Perhaps that was connected to the fact that it didn't gain one single order anywhere in the world after Sizewell B. No wonder Westinghouse sold it to us! They were well rid of it. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:04:51 -0800 (PST), Calvin wrote: On 23 Feb, 19:21, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...uclear-power-y... At last some sense. -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Not that renewables are a simple answer either as we'd need country sized solutions based on wind or wave or whatever to supply our ever increasing energy demand. Really we need to address our energy usage. Fusion is the answer, so we are told - when the Sun goes nova we'll have all the energy needed. Fusion is definitely making some progress. They have actually got more power out than they put in.. I keep wondering if rather than trying to contain plasma over long periods, they shouldn't sort of do an internal fusion engine, where a ceramic piston compresses deuterium, and a laser 'ignites it' and drives a crankshaft :-) |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. This is about just four individuals who have changed their minds: Stephen Tindale is no longer director of Greenpeace. "Lord" Chris Smith was a Labour politician, so he is well used to totally abandoning all his principles every time the wind changes direction. Mark Lynas - who? Chris Goodall - who? When green *organisations* such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth change their minds about nuclear power, that will be news. In the meantime, four old has-been swallows don't make a summer. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:58:39 +0000, John Rumm wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... There's the Candu reactor - best in the world 20+ years ago and has had some development (from Canada). I think he meant 'we' as in the UK. There's pebble bed development going on in S Africa, and the French made PWR reactors cheap and reliable. Slapping in CANDUS and PWRS is a good base to start ..then pebble beds and thorium reactors..then fusion ultimately. But the main stumbling block has been the extreme prejudice against what has actually been, even *with* Three mile Island, Windscale and Chernobyl, a very safe and pollution free industry *when compared with almost any other*. As opposed to the ridiculous standards the nuclear industry - unlike any other - has had to meet. If we can get over that hurdle, we have the time, and enough oil and coal, to stumble along while we build the new generation. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Mike wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:58:39 +0000, John Rumm wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... That's easily solved in the short term. Chuck another environmentalist on the fire and give it a good poke with a heavy metal object. They are current carbon cycle and so effectively carbon neutral. High in energy content and burning them reduces overall noxious emissions plus it increases the speed of economic development by reducing public planning enquiries. Plus if you nobble a fat one and like pork scratchings...... You might say that: I couldn't possibly comment. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. This is about just four individuals who have changed their minds: Stephen Tindale is no longer director of Greenpeace. "Lord" Chris Smith was a Labour politician, so he is well used to totally abandoning all his principles every time the wind changes direction. Mark Lynas - who? Chris Goodall - who? When green *organisations* such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth change their minds about nuclear power, that will be news. In the meantime, four old has-been swallows don't make a summer. FOE already has changed its mind IIRC. Porritt? is that the guy? ISTR he reluctantly concluded it was teh lesser of the current evils. Its only Green**** that still hankers after a return to feudalism. But Green**** has been pretty much wrong about everything from day one..so there's no news there. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"dennis@home" wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message net... The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... Yes now we will get some nasty PWR reactors that go to meltdown in about 500 milliseconds rather than the AGRs we were developing that take about three days to get to meltdown. Ah yes, the wonderful AGRs that are suffering more downtime than almost any other reactor design in the world due to multiple design and construction faults. A complete waste of time and money, hence the use of a PWR at Sizewell. The best reactor design by a long way was the 100% British Magnox, which pre-dated the AGR. The Magnox stations have the highest load factors of any reactor design and have proved enduringly reliable by the standards of the nuclear industry. Anyway, it isn't the PWR that melts down quickly, it is the latest French design of reactor. Poor dennis, you just can't get anything right. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There's pebble bed development going on in S Africa, and the French made PWR reactors cheap and reliable. No, they made them cheap. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I keep wondering if rather than trying to contain plasma over long periods, they shouldn't sort of do an internal fusion engine, where a ceramic piston compresses deuterium, and a laser 'ignites it' and drives a crankshaft :-) Would that be the power source for the Ford Fusion? ;-) |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message snet... The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... Yes now we will get some nasty PWR reactors that go to meltdown in about 500 milliseconds rather than the AGRs we were developing that take about three days to get to meltdown. Ah yes, the wonderful AGRs that are suffering more downtime than almost any other reactor design in the world due to multiple design and construction faults. A complete waste of time and money, hence the use of a PWR at Sizewell. And you don't think 30 years of development would have fixed that? The best reactor design by a long way was the 100% British Magnox, which pre-dated the AGR. The Magnox stations have the highest load factors of any reactor design and have proved enduringly reliable by the standards of the nuclear industry. Anyway, it isn't the PWR that melts down quickly, it is the latest French design of reactor. Its anything which has a compact core, including Sizewell. Poor dennis, you just can't get anything right. Poor bruce showing how wrong he can be. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. This is about just four individuals who have changed their minds: Stephen Tindale is no longer director of Greenpeace. "Lord" Chris Smith was a Labour politician, so he is well used to totally abandoning all his principles every time the wind changes direction. Mark Lynas - who? Chris Goodall - who? When green *organisations* such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth change their minds about nuclear power, that will be news. In the meantime, four old has-been swallows don't make a summer. FOE already has changed its mind IIRC. Complete rubbish. Friends of the Earth has not changed its mind about nuclear and it never will. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/nuclear_energy2.html Porritt? is that the guy? Porritt has nothing to do with Friends of the Earth. Since leaving the organisation he has bent his ideas wherever the wind might blow them in order to gain lucrative commissions from government and royalty - he is Charlie's personal adviser. ISTR he reluctantly concluded it was teh lesser of the current evils. No doubt his career would have been far less lucrative had he stuck to his principles. You have grossly misrepresented his views on nuclear power. Here's a useful summary in his own words, published last year in The Independent: "Simply stated, it is the view of the Sustainable Development Commission that this Government has got it completely wrong on nuclear power. Despite the fact that it’s going to cost UK taxpayers at least £75 billion to clean up the legacy of our current nuclear programme, that we still have no solution to the problems of nuclear waste, that nuclear power remains very expensive, that the risks of proliferation and threats to national security remain very high, and that the contribution from a new nuclear programme (if it ever materialises) to total energy needs and CO2 abatement will remain relatively low, Ministers are now putting more effort into encouraging nuclear power than they have devoted to the entire field of renewables over the last ten years. "As they see it, this is the only manageable mega-fix available to them, the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. But this is a sad and extraordinarily ill-judged illusion." So, you're wrong again. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
In article , Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: I keep wondering if rather than trying to contain plasma over long periods, they shouldn't sort of do an internal fusion engine, where a ceramic piston compresses deuterium, and a laser 'ignites it' and drives a crankshaft :-) Would that be the power source for the Ford Fusion? Closer to the Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...ear_propulsion) |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Calvin saying something like: In general I agree *but* uranium ore is not an infinite resource either. If we all switch from burning long dead trees to nuclear we are simply buying some decades before we face the same problem again. Not that renewables are a simple answer either as we'd need country sized solutions based on wind or wave or whatever to supply our ever increasing energy demand. Really we need to address our energy usage. Burn people - got plenty of them. Oh wait, that's been tried. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:09:58 +0000, Mike wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:58:39 +0000, John Rumm wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... That's easily solved in the short term. Chuck another environmentalist on the fire and give it a good poke with a heavy metal object. They are current carbon cycle and so effectively carbon neutral. High in energy content and burning them reduces overall noxious emissions plus it increases the speed of economic development by reducing public planning enquiries. Plus if you nobble a fat one and like pork scratchings...... Actually you can place a lot of the blame on the Thatcher government. Back in the 70s after the oil crisis the labour governemnt set up a long term energy strategy based on coal, oil , nuclear and renewables. One of the few things they got very right IMO. There were supposed to be 6 new nuclear power stations planned according to my sources at the time. The company I worked for at the time had tooled up to make the pressure vessels. Invested a lot of money in it. The tories got in and gave the go ahead for cheap gas powered generation. Scrapped the plans for nuclear. Saw loads of engineers and technical staff laid off and effectively buggered up the skills base in the UK for nuclear power for the next 30 years. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:34:33 +0000, Bruce wrote:
Complete rubbish. Friends of the Earth has not changed its mind about nuclear and it never will. "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts"? |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:14:16 +0000, Bruce wrote:
(Alan Braggins) wrote: In article , Bruce wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: I keep wondering if rather than trying to contain plasma over long periods, they shouldn't sort of do an internal fusion engine, where a ceramic piston compresses deuterium, and a laser 'ignites it' and drives a crankshaft :-) Would that be the power source for the Ford Fusion? Closer to the Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...ear_propulsion) I could never resist calling it the "Ford Onion". After all, you needed to be a vegetable to buy one. ;-) There was also the 'Ford Crapi' |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:34:33 +0000, Bruce wrote: Complete rubbish. Friends of the Earth has not changed its mind about nuclear and it never will. "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts"? Speak for yourself! Nuclear power is fundamentally something that FOE could never, and should never support. The facts about nuclear power are very well known and aren't going to change, so FOE won't change its view. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:19:14 +0000, Bruce wrote:
The facts about nuclear power are very well known and aren't going to change, so FOE won't change its view. Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction 640K ought to be enough for anybody If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this. One has to admire unshakeable confidence. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
Complete rubbish. Friends of the Earth has not changed its mind about nuclear and it never will. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/nuclear_energy2.html Yup, still plenty of tripe there.... You have grossly misrepresented his views on nuclear power. Here's a useful summary in his own words, published last year in The Independent: "Simply stated, it is the view of the Sustainable Development Commission that this Government has got it completely wrong on nuclear power. Well no surprise, they have got most things wrong. Too little too late would sum up the current position. Despite the fact that it’s going to cost UK taxpayers at least £75 billion to clean up the legacy of our current nuclear programme, that we loose change compared to what they are pumping into all their current "lets try to alleviate a depression caused by irresponsible lending and borrowing, buy borrowing irresponsibly" still have no solution to the problems of nuclear waste, that nuclear Breeder reactors can dispose of plenty of it. The magnitude of the problem is also tiny compared to the waste produced by a coal fired plant for example. power remains very expensive, that the risks of proliferation and We already have nuclear weapons, so nothing to worry about there then. threats to national security remain very high, and that the contribution Movie plot threats always seem "very high". But they are not worth spending serious money defending against since they are far cheaper and easier ways to cause more disruption. from a new nuclear programme (if it ever materialises) to total energy needs and CO2 abatement will remain relatively low, Ministers are now well it already supplies 25%, and one could easily double that capacity... putting more effort into encouraging nuclear power than they have devoted to the entire field of renewables over the last ten years. Which makes sense - spend the money where there is some hope of a workable solution. "As they see it, this is the only manageable mega-fix available to them, the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. But this is a sad and extraordinarily ill-judged illusion." So, you're wrong again. Or alternatively he is right, and the above is nonsense. Take your pick. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:28:07 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:- This is about just four individuals who have changed their minds: At last some sense in this thread. Tony Juniper puts it well http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tony-juniper-forget-nuclear-and-focus-on-renewables-1629328.html "Very careful analysis is still needed before going with the nuclear option. By making this choice we could inadvertently waste time and money and therefore not achieve what we could do by pursuing other options – for example, through energy efficiency, cleaner cars and renewable power. Related articles "The first issue is the scope of what nuclear can do. Today, nuclear provides only electricity and thus could do little (in the short-term at least) to reduce emissions from other sectors such as heating and transport, which are mainly powered, respectively, by gas and oil. Because of this constraint even a doubling of British nuclear capacity would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by just 8 per cent. This is, of course, a significant proportion but must be weighed against what we might achieve by spending the same effort and money on truly sustainable options. "Then there is the wider economic picture. New nuclear build would be based on imported technology, from France probably. While this might be good for French jobs and industry, we could gain more economic and employment benefits for the UK through developing renewable energy sources – such as offshore wind, tidal and wave power. Using the engineering capacity in our declining North Sea oil and gas, and shipbuilding industries to do this would improve both energy security and create jobs. More jobs could be also created in upgrading our grossly inefficient housing and a major high-speed rail programme. "No one seriously expects nuclear power stations to be built without some official subsidies (none ever have been), so we must ask if public funds will achieve the best impact through this route. One US study found that a dollar invested in energy efficiency achieves seven times more carbon reduction than a dollar spent on nuclear. "Getting renewables going alongside more efficient energy use, cleaner cars, lower traffic levels, micro-power systems for buildings and making fossil generation more efficient and cleaner is a better package. Alongside this approach we need a new cultural dimension in energy policy whereby there is popular acceptance of the need to reduce overall consumption. "Tony Juniper is a former director of Friends of the Earth. He is the Green Party general election candidate for Cambridge." -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:34:33 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:- http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/nuclear_energy2.html Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland put it well. Friends of the Earth Scotland have this to say http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/nuclear/. Had they changed their mind on the subject, or even be considering changing their mind, I would know. If I remember I will ask the next time I am in the office and see how many of the staff and volunteers roll on the floor laughing. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter