[MikeM]

well, read what bloomer wrote.

[doganjo]

That is irrelevant,there are plenty of ways to kill someone, there will always be nuclear power somewhere and there will always be the waste.No one is going to do away with nuclear weapons and you can't deny the world is a safer place with them, world war wise that is.
I've always thought there must be better things to spend nuclear weapon money on but the other day they were discussing our new nuclear arsenal and said that you don't know who your enemies are going to be in 20, 30, 50 years time and that is true.You have to have a deterant and hope some nutter like Israel doesn't use it.

I don't think it is irrelevant at all.  What you are saying is that because we already have nuclear waste and that it can be burried in someone else's back yard it is Ok to have more of the lethal stuff.  I didn't intend to be so pedantic or naive to suggest that nuclear waste can blow up - I was making the observation that anything to do with nuclear anything will eventually kill the whole planet, and that the less we have of it the more chance it and we will survive.  And yes, I WAS that CND child of 50s and 60s

[deepinthewoods]

 have now, cross posted.
 
 
just in this last few pages, we have discussed geothermal enrgy, wave energy. all are possibilities. cornwall has the hayle wave hub, the research IS being done, its just not being invested in. because it isnt as profitanble as nuclear.
 
if thats not a new point then lets leave this, otherwise im happy to keep debating.

[northfifeduckling]

yup, I have very little trust in human nature. If something can be turned into a weapon it will be done. The Russian was a small scale taster of what can be done in the civil world - not even mentioning a bomb or war. And it will be used - eventually. I also don't believe in deterrents, rather more in the escalation of violence. And as I said - mining and storing of rubbish happens mainly on other peoples' land - as did/does the testing of bombs. It's fine for us to be on the receiving end of "clean" energy. Who cares about a few lonely natives in a desert. Collateral damage so we have a few storage heaters going and feel nice and cosy - as long as the lights go out. The other thing I meant to say is that once produced it will create an ever bigger dependency on all things electrical and no incentive to reduce anything will be necessary. Consume, consume, consume. 

[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.

[MikeM]

yup, I have very little trust in human nature. If something can be turned into a weapon it will be done. The Russian was a small scale taster of what can be done in the civil world - not even mentioning a bomb or war. And it will be used - eventually. I also don't believe in deterrents, rather more in the escalation of violence. And as I said - mining and storing of rubbish happens mainly on other peoples' land - as did/does the testing of bombs. It's fine for us to be on the receiving end of "clean" energy. Who cares about a few lonely natives in a desert. Collateral damage so we have a few storage heaters going and feel nice and cosy - as long as the lights go out. The other thing I meant to say is that once produced it will create an ever bigger dependency on all things electrical and no incentive to reduce anything will be necessary. Consume, consume, consume. 

and what about the millions of lonely natives that will die as a result of climate change? Do you have any solutions you wish to bring to the debate? We don't actually need to mine anymore uranium, we have enough fissionable material to last us 500 years, this is all in the links I have posted.

[northfifeduckling]

how much time has passed since Tchernobyl? Time is not the issue and has never been. Money is the issue.

[MikeM]

sorry, can't see what point you're making.

[northfifeduckling]

My point was that there was plenty of time since Tchernobyl to develop and establish renewables. The technology is around, the support was not, as money has always been the biggest incentive for power merchants. The support is still not there (as this thread clearly shows) and we are now stuck with the combined forces of climate change and nuclear .  Offer a solution? How cynical. I live my life the best way I can with a clear conscience, I do not take holidays, travel only if I have to , grow a lot of my own food and teach my children that all the things they like they might have to live without soon enough. Power cuts and floods give them a tiny taster of what there is to come.

[deepinthewoods]

mike, you seem to be suggesting that nuclear power is the solution to co2 based  climatic change?
 
if nuclear is the solution was isnt it everywhere?

[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.

[northfifeduckling]

I forgot to say that we export solar energy (we, that is our household). On the whole we produce as much as we need. We pay for what we use at night and in winter and get paid for what we overproduce during the day, mainly in the brighter months. Can you tell me what's wrong with that? Our neighbours do the same with a wind turbine. I would prefer the landscape to be there without it but maybe, just maybe the neighbours don't like the look of my panels? I can see the bigger picture...

[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!
 
 

[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.

[MikeM]

My point was that there was plenty of time since Tchernobyl to develop and establish renewables. The technology is around, the support was not, as money has always been the biggest incentive for power merchants. The support is still not there (as this thread clearly shows) and we are now stuck with the combined forces of climate change and nuclear .  Offer a solution? How cynical. I live my life the best way I can with a clear conscience, I do not take holidays, travel only if I have to , grow a lot of my own food and teach my children that all the things they like they might have to live without soon enough. Power cuts and floods give them a tiny taster of what there is to come.

I have already addressed these points.
You have misunderstood when I said offer a solution. Our energy demands are going to increase, we need a solution.