[escapedtothecountry]

Would I like to live next to a nuclear waste site - no.


Would I like to live next to a wind turbine - no


Would I like to live next to a coal fired power station - no


Would I like to have a secure source of electricity yes.


Of course even if we got rid of all our nuclear power (as some see them as unsafe) it would be pointless given the proximity (France) to nuclear power stations of other countries.


I wonder how many of you leaving comments on here are using electricity produce by a nuclear plant? Do you know if you are? How can you tell.

[Small Farmer]

im not prepared to 'agree to disagree', thats a cop out. my arguments are well proven and you have offered nothing in the way of offering solutions to the problems that ive demonstrated with good evidence.

Is this the way the new Global Moderator model is supposed to work? 

[deepinthewoods]

would you like to raise this point in a new thread?

[Small Farmer]

No.  I'm just fine with it here.

[deepinthewoods]

ok, so please, what is your point?  are you suggesting that as a moderator im now not allowed a point of view?

[Small Farmer]

Of course you can have an opinion.  But you seem to have a problem with others having a different opinion.



But that's just my opinion.

[deepinthewoods]

I fully respect everyones right to have an opinion. the two issues i have repeatedly asked for opinions on have been legacy and the byproduct. neither of which have been offered. we all share a moral responsibility for how our energy is generated. that extends to legacy and byproduct which is for some reason ignored?     
 
its a bit like knocking on the door then running away. i never found that fun as a kid either.

[escapedtothecountry]

Sorry - with respect they have been answered (if you are referring to the debate you have had with me) but you did not like the answers. I can accept the by product from nuclear just as I accept the by product from burning fossil fuels - both a necessary evil. Just as some in the green movement gloss over the massive C02 output from cement production used to hold up the 4,000 wind turbines in the UK.



You confuse (in my opinion) not answering - with not giving an answer you seen deem to be acceptable. That is fine. I will say again we disagree.

[deepinthewoods]

i do struggle to understand how anyone can 'accept' the byproduct of nuclear energy yes.
 
i also think its very sad. such a lack of compassion, or so it would seem.
 
ive definitely learnt something from this debate, ive realised why we are in this awful mess.
 
so, we leave the waste problem for our children to deal with, and just get on with it, keeping the lights on.
 
 

[escapedtothecountry]

If you deal with facts - 30,000 people in this country died from pollution in 2008. Therefore are we all getting out of our cars? Not using diesel in our tractors? Never been on a plane? Not using fossil fuel for electricity production? If not then we are all to blame. If someone says yes - then give me the solution. Show me the way we get energy for heating/ lighting / travel that has zero environmental impact. There isn't one out there.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15693627



What that shows is that all forms of energy production has harmful by products. My argument is and always will be that yes nuclear has nasty by products. Frankly - all energy production does.

[in the hills]

So ...... if we had no nuclear could we supply current demands?
 
If so, how?
 
CAT's zero carbon document gives some indication of the changes that would be needed if we went along that route and they are considerable eg. impact on our diets, farming, landscape
Are they realistic?
 
I would shout "no nuclear" in a very big voice if the alternatives were found to be viable. DITW you are obviously very passionate about no nuclear. Have you researched the alternatives and whether they are realistic at this point in time. I'll gladly switch off my computer, TV etc. and live partly by candle light as would several people I know but that is not for everyone and not sure how much people are willing to sacrifice all the mod cons in order to reduce usage. So ..... where do we go?

[deepinthewoods]

ive agreed that there is no energy source that has a zero environmental impact. but some are worse than others.
 
germany is aiming for 100% renewable energy, its shutting down its nuclear plants. sweden and denmark are also doing the same. what they all share in common is they dont have nuclear weapons.
 
http://power-to-the-people.net/2012/10/100-renewable-energy-is-already-reality/

[escapedtothecountry]

 
I would shout "no nuclear" in a very big voice if the alternatives were found to be viable.

Have to say I agree. If there were alternatives to fossil fuels I would also agree - as they have huge impacts too. But there is no alternative at the moment. This very day all the wind turbines across the Uk produced circa 3% of our electricity. So even if we don't discuss gas and oil used for heating, where does the other 97% come from now. That is before energy usage goes up - as populations rise irrespective of energy saving methods introduced.


To be honest contributors to this site are the MOST likely to implement environmentally friendly measures - be it water harvesting, planting wood for fuel (carbon neutral). But I would not accept blackouts in the name of being environmentally friendly.

[deepinthewoods]

we have to invest in renewables, simple.
 
 
 
nuclear provides about 20% of our eleccy. if we all used 20% less, we would not need them.
 
 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html
 
 
we have nuclear power to provide weapons grade uranium.

[escapedtothecountry]

Sorry totally disagree (we are allowed to do that) So is Finland commissioning nuclear power to build nuclear weapons?


You seriously think energy consumption will go down 20%. And you type that with no irony that you are on a computer sucking up energy as I am. And that this website is hosted on a server sucking up energy.


Its clear your dislike of nuclear is more about weapons than it as a power source and I'm afraid we disagree again.  But in a democracy you can vote for a party that will shut nuclear down and I can vote for one that will keep it.