Global Warming

[Alison]

There is such a lot of information about, it is difficult for just one programme to be sufficient on its own. And it is difficult to decide who is a "pseudo-scientist" and who is a "proper" scientist as they often belittle the ones they don't agree with.

I am more inclined to go along with the view of the majority of scientists: that global warming is increasing quickly and is being caused by man-made emissions. From personal experience we know that the world is getting noticeably warmer extremely quickly.

I for one am not prepared to accept the risk that those prophesying climate doom are wrong. After all, if we bring in measures to reduce emissions, and they prove not to be necessary, what have we lost? We would still be conducting ourselves in a more environmentally sensitive way, which is all to the good.

But if we DON'T bring in measures and then it turns out that global warming is intensifying and now it is too late to do anything about it... then we have lost everything.

What was useful about the Stern report, was precisely that it was put together, not by a scientist, but by a well-respected economist with wide experience. Stern was able to research the topic without personal scientific bias. More to the point, he was able to point out to governments that the economic cost of NOT doing anything about climate change is more than the cost of trying to do something to combat it. Frankly, governments are far more likely to be swayed into action by being told how it will affect their budget, than by someone saying how many people will die if the worst happens. Sad, but there it is.

Alison

[Jenny Green]

This seems to be the documentary Johnboy saw. I haven't had time to watch it myself yet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... at+swindle

[Compo]

I am with submariner here, having too served on a nuclear submarine or two in the past. They are safe and their are risks. Now take note cos the next bit is real common sense. Did anyone here, who is critical of nuclear power manage to make their posting without using a) a computer or b) electricity from a totally renewable source?

Because right now, Nuclear power provides the easiest and simplest way to provide heaps of electricity. We are all usineg that from the national grid right now as we post and read from this forum. If we are managing to use solar or wind power to power our pc's, we then have to answer what happens to all the cadmium, berillium and mercury to name but a few hazards in our machines, which cannot be totally and safely disposed of.

Whether the debate is nuclear or less fossil fuels, or recyclinwe have to be sensible, we are in a fast moving technical world that needs lots of electric power. We cannot stop today and make it better, but we can slow it down. The governments of the world could make this happen if they so choose. Why in the news media (and we mimic it here) is everything done in superlatives. We need to be pragmatic, we need to all use less of everything, and try to be more renewable and carbon free. When we manage to have total renewable energy on tap, then by all means mothball the nuclear power stations. Till then we all need to light candles, not log on to here and use only wood gathered from a totally renewable source to heat ourselves.

Oh look we all failed, get real folks the place is headed for disaster and may take us with it, but it does not stop us all from slowing our production right down, which makes good sense from all sides of the discussion, meanwhile let's cut the panicking and get on with REAL life.

Rant by

Compo


Compo

[Jenny Green]

Having been soaked in rain that fell after the Chernobyl disaster (which I later heard on the radio should have been avoided at all costs) I am slightly biased against nuclear energy. However, while we can debate all we like on whether it is safe, there is no doubt that the major problems with it lie in the decommissioning of the power stations. This is a hugely expensive operation, so much so that we need to weigh this up against the cost benefit of energy they put out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4142636.stm

Also, this is where the real safety concern is as far as I understand it. Until we can find a way of disposing of the waste completely and permanently with no danger posed to generations tens of thousands of years in the future, we just shouldn't build any more. This is a programme I listened to last year and if I remember correctly one of the men involved in decommissioning nuclear power plants said he thought they just shouldn't be built in the first place:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/dounreay/pip/sipyx/

[Compo]

I agree with all of what you say Jenny, but IF it is global warming we have to worry about, my worry is that we will not get renewable resources in place in order to save the planet, safe nuclear energy with the kind of 'waste safety' measures that you have discussed has to be a viable stop gap measure.

However the cynic in me suspects that what will happen is that we will run out of fossil fuel first and that will be the first crisis, rather than us all overheating and drowning from tidal rising.

Compo

[Colin Miles]

Alison, the Stern report has been much criticised by advocates of Global warming as being poor science. He took the extreme scenario. Having said that global warming is undoubtedly happening, though whether this is primarily due to the Sun or CO2 and other emissions is another matter.

Possibly the major problem is the way that mankind is polluting the planet, both in terms of numbers and activities. So recycling, saving energy, etc., is undoubtedly a very good way of reducing that effect. We have solar panels on our roof for hot water and this greatly reduce our use of oil and electricity. If all new housing incorporated that and if all street lights were switched off after midnight, as used to happen, the country's energy use and CO2 emissions would be greatly reduced. Wind power is by and large useless and reliance on that would create great instability in the electricity distributing network.

[tea-shot]

Right you lot You can rant as much as you like about whether or not to use nuclear energy BUT until you live in an area that is almost totally dependent on the stuff for employment ( all the way down the food chain) and you have to put up with not only this country dumping the waste here but it being brought in from other countries as well, then I would suggest - most humbly - that you don't have too much to worry about. Living 15 miles from Sellafield we won't know if anything drastically goes wrong ( one bright light and that will be it) but I would rather have my family working there than in the local chemical factory that has thankfully closed down. Every time the wind blew in from the sea they would sent out compensation forms for local residents to claim the damage caused to their cars, properties etc from the acid rain. Since it has closed we now have dolphins swimming off the coast - even though Sellafield still discharges into the same coastline. I think that a lot of emotive stuff is peddled about the nuclear industry and unless you have worked in it then you have to accept the 'experts' viewpoints - and all you have to ask them is - who is paying their wages

[submariner]

Jenny, Having been soaked by the rain from Chernoble, I take it that it is your ghost that is communicating on the forum. Sorry Jenny, but I couldn't resist that! My point is that there are to many scare mongers about, when Nuclear Power is mentioned. The waste from power stations could be safely stored, but every reasonable idea that is muted, is attacked by the FOE and like boddies, and they are not infalible. Remember the Shell drilling platform and the fuss that they brought up? When all the hulabaloo had died down, it was shown that it was all hot air, but did the appologise? No!Anyway, the fall out you mentioned was from far away, so if you think that by not building nuclear power stations here you are safe, then think again. As I said earlier, France produces 80% of its power from nuclear, and they are closer to the South coast, that Cumbria or Ynys Mon.

[Jenny Green]

Having been soaked in the rain from Chernobyl, I would have thought I was living evidence that we don't minimise the risk from nuclear power stations by not building them here. And before you say - well, there's nothing wrong with you, a close friend of mine is currently dying of cancer and he was also soaked in that rain. I'm sorry to be emotive, but it's nevertheless true.
I don't think the argument that other nations are doing something potentially dangerous is an persuasive argument that we should do it too.
I know nothing about the Shell oil drilling controversy, nor anything about the actions of the FOE.
If you know of a safe way of storing nuclear waste that will remain dangerous for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years then please tell me because I think it's impossible.
I'm not being terse - I should be working and don't have time to post at length in nicer tones!

[Cider Boys]

Our country’s population is growing at an alarmingly uncontrolled fast rate and we are not able to guarantee our energy supplies for the future generations. So, what is the proven alternative to nuclear power? Most rationale people accept that there is no alternative

The anti-nuclear lobby have had a free reign of years chanting their inaccurate misleading futile mantra of propaganda and have never proved their case. The sooner we dismiss their absurd maxims and get cracking and build new nuclear stations the better.

Best wishes.

Barney

[richard p]

hi barney, do you know the current state of affairs at hinkley point? last rumour i heard was that they were shut down for repairs and not ctually producing anything regards richard

[Cider Boys]

Hello Richard



Hinkley Point B has not been producing electricity since last October and after repairs is now waiting approval from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) to start producing electricity once more.

As you are no doubt aware there are two nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point, Hinkley A and Hinkley B. Hinkley A was closed in 2000 and has been undergoing decommissioning, whilst Hinkley B only has a forecast life until 2011. These stations are now old and after a protracted enquiry planning permission was granted as long ago as 1990 to build a third power station, Hinkley C at the site. This unfortunately has not been undertaken, ironically partly due to misinformation from many of the same politicians that now belatedly understand the urgent need to replace these older nuclear stations.

Support Nuclear
You know it makes sense.

Barney

[Jenny Green]

Our country’s population is growing at an alarmingly uncontrolled fast rate and we are not able to guarantee our energy supplies for the future generations. So, what is the proven alternative to nuclear power? Most rationale people accept that there is no alternative

The anti-nuclear lobby have had a free reign of years chanting their inaccurate misleading futile mantra of propaganda and have never proved their case. The sooner we dismiss their absurd maxims and get cracking and build new nuclear stations the better.

Best wishes.

Barney

Do you have shares in the nuclear power industry or something Barney, because this rant is as much propaganda as was ever written by the anti-nuclear lobby. For a start the population isn't growing at an alarmingly uncontrolled fast rate at all. Most of the recent increase in population has been created by immigration. And even if it were, why is the solution to build ever more nuclear power stations? Do you foresee a future of people packed in like sardines, living next door to power stations?
And which part of the anti-nuclear mantra is inaccurate, misleading and futile? The bit about the fact that radiation kills people, or the one that tells us it does not decay into a harmless form for millenia?
You ask for a proven alternative to nuclear power. I ask for proof that we won't pass on the legacy our short term thinking, selfish, wasteful lifestyles to future generations.

[Cider Boys]

Hello Jenny

I will try to answer the questions and observations you have posed.

I do not have any shares in Nuclear Power stations although I do confess that both my wife and I have worked at local nuclear stations and two of my sons presently work at the nuclear plants.

As for our population expanding at an uncontrolled alarming rate, this I believe is a clear unpalatable fact. You also make the observation that this is due to immigration a point that I would not disagree with.

However, the fact is our population is expanding (current projections indicate by many millions) with an ever increasing requirement for electrical energy. It is my belief that our future generations will not thank us for doing absolutely nothing.

You say that radiation kills people, so should we shut our hospitals because they practice nuclear medicine?

Jenny, you are no doubt aware that background radiation is present everywhere and any additional radiation from nuclear stations is negligible when compared to having an X-ray, walking across Dartmoor, living close to power lines or even taking an aircraft flight. Indeed the Sun can be considered a nuclear fusion reactor and you may also appreciate that artificial fertilisers emit radiation!

Modern nuclear plants are far safer than older reactors and forward looking countries are commissioning them whilst we have dragged our feet.

You obviously do not share my optimism regarding modern nuclear energy but what is your alternative? Can we really afford to do nothing?

Kind regards

Barney

[Jenny Green]

Barney, I notice you've failed to address my point about the safe disposal of waste.
When I talk about radiation, I'm not talking about the radiation given off by nuclear power stations when running normally. In fact, some recent research has shown that a low level of radiation may be paradoxically better for us than none. I'm talking about the radiation in nuclear waste, and that given out when stations aren't running normally, as in this example:

A damning report into the safety record of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria has criticised owners British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) for allowing workers to cut corners and falsify safety test data.

BNFL has already admitted serious failings in the way Sellafield has been run but is now trying to defend its track record for and reassure customers that British fuel is safe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/647535.stm

And regarding this massive growth in population, these are the facts:

The UK has a growing population. It grew by 375,100 people in the year to mid-2005 (0.6 per cent). The UK population increased by 7.7 per cent since 1971, from 55.9 million. Growth has been faster in more recent years. Between mid-1991 and mid-2004 the population grew by an annual rate of 0.3 per cent and the average growth per year since mid-2001 has been 0.5 per cent.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6

Hardly uncontrolled or alarming. In many industrialised countries populations are falling, birth rates are falling, and there are serious concerns about there being enough young people to finance the care of an increasingly aging population.
I'm no expert on sustainable energy generation so I can't give the solution and I'm not suggesting we close down all power stations tomorrow. But I do know that down the road from me is a wind farm and the sails turn even on the stillest days.
Quick-fix, short term solutions are not the answer, not when we're mortgaging the future.