Nuclear Power

[Lateralthinking1]

10 people living on their own will consume more energy than 10 people living together.

I am not sure that this automatically follows. We have already established that central heating is one of the biggest pressures on resource. Of those of working age, the overwhelming majority of individual home dwellers will be in work for large parts of each day. Couples of working age without children are more likely to have one person at home during the day. Those with children are more likely to have their homes frequented for more time during the day. The elderly as a trend are likely to be at home more than those younger and also more in need of heating, whether they live alone or as a couple.

We have already noted that it is transport that has been responsible for an increase of 95% of energy use between 1970 and 2001. This hike far exceeds increases in other sectors. The maximum number of cars one person needs is one. The maximum number of cars three people in a house need is not necessarily three but it is frequently considered to be the case that they do, particularly if each works and socialises in completely different directions.

The additional factor you have to add in with families is the children. Their needs will lead to additional travelling patterns that do not apply where there is one person and add to the probability of additional cars being seen to be needed. By contrast, singles have fewer considerations to take into account before deciding not to own a car. Of course, many homes with three or more individuals are not family homes but younger home shares. These are more likely to be in line with singles in terms of car ownership. However, there are also distinctions to be made between urban and rural dwellers too.

[teamsaint]

I worry a lot when I hear the calls for fewer people in order to reduce consumption.

I mean, this reduction always has to come from other people/countries/groups /whatever...never our "own". Its always other people who are the problem.Its like air travel and pollution..its always cheap air travel that gets blamed..not the expensive sort.
There is a pattern here.. and the pattern is the well off, (and in general I mean the REALLY well off, the top 1% and their friensd in the top 10%) telling us that its poorer people who are the problem.

Time we all woke up to the real picture. Expensive energy is a tool of the wealthy.
The arms industry is controlling much of what goes on in the world, (Libya anyone?), and its all financed by the utterly ruthless and irresponsible banking sector.

For once, lets not blame the poor....lets blame those with the real responsibilty for a world in chaos, where economic fear is the new tool of government.

[Lateralthinking1]

I agree with all of the above with the proviso perhaps that if countries like this one really got their houses in order, then maybe they could have the standing to take the population issue for debate internationally. At the moment, there is a lot of frantic climate change activity, with Britain in the lead in some ways, while individual behaviour doesn't change.

A bit like sitting in an armchair with a lot of finger pointing, arms waving, and legs kicking or sprawled out. In some ways, even we are all doing it here, but that matters much less than in those who are in a position to be able to introduce mechanisms for altering behaviour.

One of many things I worry about is the descriptions we all use. The Government, the rich, and so on. They almost enable the people involved to disappear in the anonymity of language. Always remember, I think, that there are individual minds behind those groupings, generally lubricated by the most reasonable and authoritative sounding voices, and always onto which are painted variable attempts at delightful smiles.

[Flosshilde]

Lateralthinking, my hypothetical ten people weren't neccessarily 2 adults & ten children. There has been an enormous increase in single-adult households recently, either because older people are living alone, and/or because younger people are leaving the parental home & setting up on their own (often, but not always, because of where they work). If these people shared a house (or, in the case of younger people, continued to live with their parents until they married - & even after - which used to be the case) then the demands on building materials, land, and the running costs (central heating etc) would be much reduced. Even two families sharing living accomodation would decrease the demand on resources - including, probably, car use.

There are many other ways in which energy use could be reduced. Living closer to school & work, walking to either instead of driving, car sharing if you have to drive, greater use of public transport (& better planned public transport). Unfortunately car ownership & driving is the easy option, & encouraged by governments (reduction in petrol taxes, anyone?).

[Lateralthinking1]

Flosshilde - On your first paragraph, I think that there is probably a distinction between those who have been into higher education and the others in terms of continuing to live with parents. A lot of the latter stay with parents for longer, particularly as marriage often happens later. There are a lot of house shares among the go-ahead 20-somethings but I take the point about more living alone and the same is true of an older population.

Second paragraph - Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

At the moment, there is a lot of frantic climate change activity, with Britain in the lead in some ways, while individual behaviour doesn't change.

Exactly. The blame is always cast elsewhere. Yet in this country, under the previous government, there was a scheme to encourage us to boost the economy by buying more German, French, Italian, Spanish, Japanese and Swedish cars (plus a few "British" ones, owned by the USA, Japan and Germany).

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i see Monbiot has recanted from the anti nuclear lobby for being unscientific and behaving just like the climate change deniers ... ho hum ....

[Frances_iom]

i see Monbiot has recanted from the anti nuclear lobby for being unscientific and behaving just like the climate change deniers ... ho hum ....

silly as we all 'know' that perceived risks outweigh any possible rational assessment - scare stories get you heard - plodding analysis to gauge the truth seldom get reported but as pointed out earlier unless we return to middle-age communes without any procreation (think the Russian old believers attempted this) then when the lights start going out we will know who to blame.

[Dave2002]

We have already noted that it is transport that has been responsible for an increase of 95% of energy use between 1970 and 2001.

Arguing about increases can often be misleading, though there may be real "facts" behind. I don't even know if your stated figure is correct.

Transport is definitely not consuming 95% of the energy, and I think that it may not even be as much as 30%. Domestic heating is one significant area, and I believe also that industrial use is fairly large.

However I note that one part of the travel sector attempts to use an increase argument in its favour - this being air travel, which increases "only" a few percent each year, and represents only a small fraction of the total transport energy usage.

[Lateralthinking1]

Dave2002 - Sorry, (very) bad wording on my part. Transport energy use increased by 95% between those years.

Monbiot - Far too sweeping.

Climate change deniers - bad phrase - are in several categories - 1. Deny it altogether (not many of those) 2. Deny that it is caused by human beings. 3. Deny that it is all caused by human beings. 4. Deny that it is as serious as some say.

Nuclear opponents (and indeed supporters) likewise. He doesn't seem to be able to see the grey areas.

In fact, the more obvious parallel is between nuclear supporters and climate change deniers because both tend to claim that what is currently happening is largely safe.

I lost some of my respect for George when he took his sleeping bag into a field adjacent to Heathrow to oppose a third runway and said that aircraft noise was so bad already that he only managed to get four hours sleep.

Most people anywhere under canvas don't get that much and ditto many in quiet homes across the land. - Lat.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Transport is not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Neither is domestic heating. No, it's the meat industry. And, no, I'm still not a vegetarian

[greenilex]

As per my Stormy Weather post this a.m.: nuclear submarine Astute complete with obsolete PWR due in the centre of Southampton city surrounded by passenger liners at 12.30p.m. today Wednesday.

You'd have trouble making it up, you really would.

[teamsaint]

And the worse fukushima gets, the less we hear from the mainstream media.....

[Lateralthinking1]

And the worse fukushima gets, the less we hear from the mainstream media.....

Yes, so if the news isn't news, then it must be..........? (10 letters, starts with a p, ends in an a)

Greenilex - You are worried just because a Royal Navy crewman was shot dead and another is in a life-threatening condition after a shooting on board the nuclear submarine not far from the town centre?

In truth, I probably understand your concern. If sanity isn't sanity, then it must be.......? (7 letters, starts with an m, ends in an s)

[greenilex]

You've all read the news and can judge what kind of government subjects people to 46 days on end in those conditions...but I don't expect the consequences for the city of Southampton, its dock traffic, pleasure boats, sail-training ships, yachts and liners are as apparent.

If the man had punctured the coolant pipes or control panels...

I wonder how justice can be done.