Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
OTP not around to defend this policy?
I'm having real difficulty coming up with any sound justification for such a policy even thinking from an obliquely right wing perspective
I think a lot of core conservative countryside alliance types are going to boo and hiss over this
Here's his argument with Johann Hari, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons –
would you say this was
a) 'necessary in order to tackle the deficit' or
b) 'a land-grab of ideological opportunism designed to line the pockets of a few well heeled cronies and political backers'
Not perfect, but over halfway.
the Coalition seems to think that building Nuclear Power Stations is a commitment to 'green energy'
...and other such foibles of comprehension
Seagull droppings near Sellafield are radioactive, as nuclear waste has leached out of the underground storage areas, into the soil and into the water/food cycle.
There still isn't a satisfactory way to store it. I wish there was.
the pramatic part of me says that given Britan's impending energy gap, it's the least worst solution - rather that than "clean coal" or oil, and we should also be investing heavily in offshore wind over the next decade.
same link as above
that Uranium is a finite resource (of which the UK has no known deposits) and Nuclear Power plants are MAJOR industrial undertakings which require massive amounts of energy to build in the first place - and until we have nuclear powered diggers, trucks, trains, concrete mixers et al nuclear doesn't take us out of the fossil fuels dependency
Unless we're to suffer mass power cuts towards the end of the decade and during the 2020s. Assuming we get our house in order this decade (we won't, but that's another issue), I don't see any reason to invest in nuclear (unless Fusion becomes reality), but as things stand our options are currently nuclear + renewables or carbon based + renewables.
they already have achieved nuclear fusion, the question now is creating stations big enough to be of any use. In the program they said it wasn't too hard and predicted that in 20 years time nuclear fusion will be the world's main power source. Optimistic I guess in terms of how energy companies would take it, but in terms of the science i would presume they knew best.
Looks promising, but I won't hold my breath.
(and to my mind any new Nuclear Power Station where the ground is broken today will not even be fully operational before 2025 if that) is massive investment taken away from renewables
it's clearly a tough problem but the consequences of a switch from carbon + renewables to Nuclear + renewables + carbon is hardly something that can be including under the rubrique 'green energy'
(with the emphasis on the "-er") solution than carbon so adding it into the mix in favour of carbon would be preferable given the option of the two (it seems that over the next decade we can only actually bring so much renewable power online so more of that may not be an option), but I think we may have to agree to disagree there.
If we don't get any wind for a couple of weeks and we're relying on that alone for 50% of our needs, we're similarly fucked.
as I personally feel that a massive investment in renewables research could be the answer to both the energy problem and the problem of how the UK faces the global economy of the future in terms of being a market-leader within a highly specialised and vital industry
aren't you forgetting OTP and his windmill magnet solution?
especially as understanding and urgency have increased.
It is a silly policy, but that alone does not mean that the government isn't broadly protectionist when it comes to the environment. Cameron is a renowned greeno.