Nuclear Power

[Cellini]

Gosh, yes. And we should get rid of those pesky people who get drunk and use up NHS resources. Those with poor eye-sight...those who are disabled...they consume too many resources. The list is endless.

I'm pleased you agree with me.

[greenilex]

There was a time not so long ago when "peaceful uses of nuclear energy" were going to solve all our problems. But that was before we realised the costs and other implications of disposing of nuclear waste...and the risks of building reactors almost anywhere.

Solar energy (in southern Libya, for example?) could provide a large proportion of Europe's needs...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there are three big possibilities each of which requires major investment:
1 the education of women as a global priority [by far the most effective contraceptive]
2 conservation on a large scale [insulation, lower settings, more efficient transport and electric cars, see without the hot air]
3 nuclear energy technology and practice - cheap safe electricity is a global imperative and it is not necessary to use uranium [thus avoiding weapons and nasties]

the cooperation, widespread adoption and sheer difficulties may well be beyond the wit of mankind ..... in which case people will die as the four horsemen ride


currently either of Lovelock's marker events [a major glacier rapid melt or another dustbowl] are both not only likely but may well be beginning

[Frances_iom]

Solar energy (in southern Libya, for example?) could provide a large proportion of Europe's needs...

I guess it has 24hr sunshine ? - how do you store the other needed 12+ hrs of power even assuming the transmission costs of the power can be overcome

There was an interesting discussion on R4 this morning in which in was emphasised that people could no longer consider themselves educated without some knowledge of science (and if I can add some ability to apply rational argument to situations)

[Frances_iom]

In China there is a rather large domestic demand for air travel, with many 747s full of Chinese tourists doing internal flights.

No doubt - distances are large but China has a very impressive high speed railway network either in or just about to enter service - I recall many years ago doing the Osaka/Tokyo trip on a 747 (not quite the Benbecula/Barra hop but not far short of it in 747 terms)
The key assumption behind all those that suggest population control is that their own standard of living is sacrosanct - are they willing to live at chinese/african peasant levels ? - if not what level do they accept then do the sums and work out how much energy is required (+ food given the low energy transfer rate in meat production) - the next 30 years are going to be horrendous with unprecedented competition for resources.

[amateur51]

The key assumption behind all those that suggest population control is that their own standard of living is sacrosanct

What about your own commute, frances?

[Frances_iom]

What about your own commute, frances?

true train + boat, I'm getting a bit old to row - may I ask when you last flew ? or what your household energy consumption is ? My point is that our lives are inherently more energy consuming than in the past though I suspect my journey today is more efficient than those of say in the 60's - I had hoped to to be more settled but commitments keep me still in UK but I still reckon I use less energy/year than average person in UK.

[Serial_Apologist]

I have also done my bit towards population control by not adding to the next generation of little consumers (afaik). As far as reducing living standards is concerned, I gave up having a car 2 years ago, having pranged mine; I bike and use public transport, and tend only to replace worn out merchandise with non-replaceable parts; ie. clothes, hi-fi/computer equipment, tap washers etc. I buy as much food from the local farmers' market as is readily available, just under half my nutrition thereby being transported from within a 20 mile radius.

While controversial, gm could potentially lead to upping home production and new fruit & veg phenotypes (?) produced in local sustainably-operated greenhouses/polytunnels to yields much greater than those grown in WW2 Dig for Britain, thereby decreasing dependence on l/d transport, domestic and international. Calum's point about sustainable energy sources (tho I didn't know nuclear power could be done without using uranium??) would also help safeguard soil quality - recalling as I do the poor performance of our London back yard pre the Clean Air Act - and one could foresee an expansion of popularity in homegrown fruit & veg.

The main issue of sustainability arguably consists in the "planned obsolescence" of most product under capitalism, and the closely associated consumerist "keeping up with the Joneses" bonding of the collective mindset with capitalism's unsustainable ethos. Still the best boots I have are those imported from E Europe prior to the collapse of the E bloc economies, i.o.w. those that were made to last. If someone can demonstrate to me that the system we live under can overcome its own innate short-termism and produce stuff that works, doesn't soon wear out, and is easily maintainable, I will rest my suitcase.

S-A

[amateur51]

true train + boat, I'm getting a bit old to row - may I ask when you last flew ? or what your household energy consumption is ? My point is that our lives are inherently more energy consuming than in the past though I suspect my journey today is more efficient than those of say in the 60's - I had hoped to to be more settled but commitments keep me still in UK but I still reckon I use less energy/year than average person in UK.

I last flew, to Marseille, in 2007 frances.

My winter quarter gas + electricity consumption came to £120 - not sure what this tells me, except it's a very tight pinch

I do not have any children

[Frances_iom]

My winter quarter gas + electricity consumption came to £120 -

You are indeed truely frugal, my central heating (off for much of day) was more than this for just 3weeks in Peel over the New Year (tho ManxGas prices are twice those of the UK) -you are even better than my house bound invalid friend here in UK for whom only a bedroom and adjacent bathroom with shower are heated with all meals warmed up from microwave - either your house meets every possible green standard or like my friend you are effectively living in a single room with no significant cooking.
However this is getting away from the point - even your usage of delivered energy exceeds that for much of the world's population and they have just as much right to energy use as those in the west - as others have pointed out (and several well regarded books confirm) the only possible source of the energy is not renewables (though these are of course badly needed) but nuclear as with competition for land etc more energy/calorie grown will also be needed

[amateur51]

My flat has wonderful sealed double-glazed units on windows & patio doors frances, for which I take no credit - I rent. In the winter I have central heating on for 1.5 hours in the morning so that I get up to a warm home, and my lunchtime toast or soup and cooking my evening meal heats up the place just nicely.

I am very lucky

[Bryn]

If the NP station(s) in Japan have a nuclear explosion (and it seems very likely) ...

I does? How? It's not that easy to create a fission explosion you know, let alone a fusion one. Chemical explosions which might spread finely divided nuclear material around are a real, if somewhat remote risk, (much, much less likely that that which occurred at Chernobyl), but a nuclear explosion? I just don't see how it might possibly occur in such a situation.

[StephenO]

Although the likelihood of a nuclear explosion is virtually nonexistent, there's still the danger of radiation leaks. It appears no uranium or plutonium has escaped from the Fukushima plant but radioactive iodine has. Although this is at a far lower level, it's still an alarming prospect given the number of cases of cancer following Chernobyl.

The point, surely, is that no nuclear power station is 100% safe. The risks of nuclear power far outweigh any supposed benefits and the sooner the world abandons nuclear power the better for all of us. I don't imagine I was the only person who was reminded of Hiroshima when I saw the pictures from Japan.

[Frances_iom]

I does? How? It's not that easy to create a fission explosion you know, let alone a fusion one. Chemical explosions which might spread finely divided nuclear material around are a real, if somewhat remote risk, (much, much less likely that that which occurred at Chernobyl), but a nuclear explosion? I just don't see how it might possibly occur in such a situation.

Much of the problem, is in the incessant 24hr news coverage - talking heads debate items they have no knowledge of - the problem is possible meltdown (the core is still extremely hot - the uranium is held as a form of ceramic that is a poor heat conductor but which melts, normally it is cooled by pressurised water (ie a very high boiling point) this primary circuit then warms up the steam that drives the turbines but energy is needed to pump the water around - this energy was removed by exhausion of the batteries( a very short term device to allow backup generators to turn on) but the standby generators had been wrecked by the tidal wave as had all power links to the grid - - if the core does burn its way through the steel casing (which is designed to withstand the molten ceramic) then there may be small chemical explosion that might scatter radioactive material in the very near vicinity, nasty + probably deadly for those in the vicinity (a few 10's of metres) and a messy clearup operation would be needed (tho much less costly than the BP disaster) - Chernobyl was a very different design and there the lid was blown off a concrete vessel and the carbon rods used as control caught fire which fire raged for several days.

[BetweenTheStaves]

.....

The point, surely, is that no nuclear power station is 100% safe. ....

Neither is driving a car, taking the train or walking down the street.