[MikeM]

i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!

and what evidence can you provide to suggest this will generate enough power for the nation.

[Small Farmer]

ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!

Just to revisit George Monbiot  "But all of us, if we have a serious interest in doing something about nuclear waste, should make this choice. What do you want to see done with it and why? Simply shouting down other people's suggestions won't make it go away."


The very recent hike in gas prices is not just the utility companies playing games with our wallets.  The UK doesn't have long term LNG supply contracts with Qatar, and the contracts we do have allow the Qataris to play with supply schedules.  Qatar supplies one third of the world's LNG - and practically all UK imports - and Asian countries are bidding for it.  So the Qataris are playing games.  While we have pipelines from Norway there isn't enough capacity.  That's not a five year problem it's a happening right now.


Of course anything kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz just cancels all bets.

[deepinthewoods]

i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!

and what evidence can you provide to suggest this will generate enough power for the nation.

 
umm, it was a bit of fun, mike.

[MikeM]

ah, yes, sorry. I'd actually really like to put a wind turbine up, not cos of green energy, just cos it'd really annoy the surrey suburnanites who make up this village.

[deepinthewoods]

it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.

 
ok having thought about this last statement some more, it really doesnt make any sense.
 
climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels not nuclear, i agree. so  if renewables are not the answer (according to you) then what is? the nuclear plants mentioned will not provide the energy we need, only replace the energy from shutting down old reactors. they wont make anything new or more.
 
if we need this energy 'now' then it has to be renewables like solar and wind, cos thats where the tech is. offshore wind farms are a brilliant proposition, geothermal is a brilliant proposition. if we spent the money investing in those rather than nuclear it could provide the same energy as the 2 new nuclear power plants planned.

renewables are not the answer now. The tech is not there. This has been proven. You prove to me that renewables are able to deliever energy now, in the same timeframe that nuclear can. It may be there in the future but it isn't here now. Nuclear is here now, it is a proven technology. I have said all this before, you are not offering anything new. This has now been circular for a whole page.

we know that our old nuclear plants are being shut down right? the new nuclear plants are to replace them right? they only produce 18% of our supply, ok?  so, obviously the solution is not nuclear.

[doganjo]

i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!

Yes, please - I'd have them both, but please, please do not put a nuclear reactor in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter.  I cannot understand why people cannot see the harm they produce.

[doganjo]

ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!

Just to revisit George Monbiot  "But all of us, if we have a serious interest in doing something about nuclear waste, should make this choice. What do you want to see done with it and why? Simply shouting down other people's suggestions won't make it go away."


The very recent hike in gas prices is not just the utility companies playing games with our wallets.  The UK doesn't have long term LNG supply contracts with Qatar, and the contracts we do have allow the Qataris to play with supply schedules.  Qatar supplies one third of the world's LNG - and practically all UK imports - and Asian countries are bidding for it.  So the Qataris are playing games.  While we have pipelines from Norway there isn't enough capacity.  That's not a five year problem it's a happening right now.


Of course anything kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz just cancels all bets.

But Scotland has oil! and Gas!  And who takes the benefit of that?

[escapedtothecountry]

I can certainly see the harm. I also see the harm burning fossil fuel creates. Yet here we are using computers inevitably made on the other side of the world. Components made from heavy metals and then of course the plastics from oil. All energy production and creates harm. It may not be palatable but more people die from the pollution from fossil fuel in this country than from nuclear. Facts not opinion I'm afraid.


I hope everyone here who is anti nuclear doesn't have their electricity provided by companies who operate in the nuclear industry.

[MikeM]

it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.

 
ok having thought about this last statement some more, it really doesnt make any sense.
 
climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels not nuclear, i agree. so  if renewables are not the answer (according to you) then what is? the nuclear plants mentioned will not provide the energy we need, only replace the energy from shutting down old reactors. they wont make anything new or more.
 
if we need this energy 'now' then it has to be renewables like solar and wind, cos thats where the tech is. offshore wind farms are a brilliant proposition, geothermal is a brilliant proposition. if we spent the money investing in those rather than nuclear it could provide the same energy as the 2 new nuclear power plants planned.

renewables are not the answer now. The tech is not there. This has been proven. You prove to me that renewables are able to deliever energy now, in the same timeframe that nuclear can. It may be there in the future but it isn't here now. Nuclear is here now, it is a proven technology. I have said all this before, you are not offering anything new. This has now been circular for a whole page.

we know that our old nuclear plants are being shut down right? the new nuclear plants are to replace them right? they only produce 18% of our supply, ok?  so, obviously the solution is not nuclear.

there has been a moritorium on building nuclear power plants for some 20 years now. In that time we instead build gas fired stations. A lot more low emission energy could've been generated if we built more than the 2 stations in question. However, due to the kneejerk inspireed moritorium, we now lack the skills to build them and have to tender their construction to other countries. This is the reason we are in this mess now, because of a whole slew of policy failures over the last 20 years.

[MikeM]

i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!

Yes, please - I'd have them both, but please, please do not put a nuclear reactor in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter.  I cannot understand why people cannot see the harm they produce.

and I cannot understand why people cannot see clear evidence when it's presented to them.

[deepinthewoods]

re the straits of hormuz, hence the rhetoric about irans nuclear program.  funny how badly we dont want them to have it if its so benign.
 
 
 
 
you cannot compare deaths by pollution to deaths by nuclear energy, we dont know how many more people have got cancer since chernobyl, or how many will die because of leukemia, or from fall out from fukushima, it takes at least 20years to show up, which is very very handy for the pr machine pushing nuclear.

[MikeM]

 
you cannot compare deaths by pollution to deaths by nuclear energy, we dont know how many more people have got cancer since chernobyl, or how many will die because of leukemia, or from fall out from fukushima, it takes at least 20years to show up, which is very very handy for the pr machine pushing nuclear.

unfounded rhetoric I'm afraid.

[deepinthewoods]

what? are you taking the pi.ss???
 
 
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.html

[escapedtothecountry]

The number of deaths from one vs another isn't the point. The point is that all energy production has side effects which kill. So unless you are saying we should also NOT use fossil fuels, then couldn't someone say it was hypocritical? 30,000 known deaths from pollution in this country in 2008. Yet I suspect you me and most people use petrol diesel gas etc. So why aren't you saying no to such energy sources too? Are you prepared to give up has oil petrol diesel and the like? I'm not.

[MikeM]

erm, no. Your statement was unfounded rhetoric. It had no foundations. You said we couldn't compare deaths caused my coal to those caused by nuclear, then went on to make a fuzzy statement about not know how many will die from it.