Protestors take over site of proposed nuclear power station Hinkley C
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
fractionMan
Custom Title
my mum's going 
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
I'd prefer it if you all protested the use of electricity by switching off your computers.
krink
I'll do it this afternoon
ChrisD
.
Twitter report (from Stop Nuclear Power) suggests that EDF have won legal right to remove occupiers but failed to gag protest.
Blockade on 10th March details : http://stophinkley.org/
Blockade on 10th March details : http://stophinkley.org/
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
I'm not the one who wants to abolish electricity.you go first, we'll all follow, honest
BigTom
Well-Known Member
umm.. isn't this about using nuclear power to generate leccy rather than against leccy itself?
krink
I'll do it this afternoon
i'm against abolishing electricity. in some places like scotland they've only just got it so that would be a bit unfair really.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
Unfortunately there's a serious shortage of unicorn farts, so it's nuclear or candles.
krink
I'll do it this afternoon
could power the world on guff like this
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I'm guessing that you don't have a great deal of interest in this topic, but for anyone else reading the Dept of Energy and Climate Change drew up a series of predictions for UK energy use and ways of supplying it called Pathways 2050. They found 17 different 'pathways' which satisfied the UK's energy needs and also complied with the UK's various undertakings on emissions reductions. 10 of the Pathways involved the use of nuclear power, 7 did not. All were considered "equally robust" in terms of availability (i.e. they are all equally practically possible). No Pathway envisaged a significant input from Unicorn farts, although obviously we should keep an open mind to new technologies as these develop in viability.
The "nuclear power is inevitable" narrative is false and to lazily propagate it is foolish.
Interestingly none of the Pathways looked at the question of increasing energy efficiency, i.e. doing the same but using less energy, despite the fact that this is clearly the most cost-effective route to gaining energy.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
Perhaps because the only way of getting people to use less energy is to make it cost (a lot) more, and that's not tremendously popular. Can you link to this report so that I can superficially debunk it rather than do my job?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Rubbish. Low energy light bulbs, cavity wall and loft insulation etc.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
The former are already being pushed as hard as they can be without actually banning incandescents, and in any event aren't a significant fraction of electricity usage. The latter aren't very relevant to a discussion of electricity generation, as most UK homes are gas heated.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Energy efficiency was the subject at hand.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
James Lovelock
krink
I'll do it this afternoon
cheers for that, I just had a quick but very interesting read on that bloke but I'm thinking of someone younger, media type.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Monbiot the daft twat, all because his opposition to nuclear power was based on a crude sensationalist strawman "three eyed fish" kind of thing. He has subsequently been lecturing all other anti nuclear people about how silly they are and how nuclear is the only option if we wish to maintain our energy usage, overlooking the fact one of the reasons a lot of people are opposed to nuclear is precisely because it represents a means of carrying on with the status quo, holds back development in other forms of sustainable energy and isn't without problems such as uranium mining and disposal.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Over the Daily Fail's dead body.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
There is a certain irony in the watermelon type greens who want with one hand to give more money to the working class, whilst with the other would take away most of the actual benefits of said money, like foreign holidays, washing machines and central heating. At least Prince Phillip and the other neo-malthusians are consistent in their intent to kill off 90% of the human population.
krink
I'll do it this afternoon
that's the one, what a tool.
ChrisD
.
The Association for Conservation of Energy (...OK it's an industry lobby but seems fairly open/transparent) did a report (Nov 2011) on how the nuclear industry is able to hide transmission and decontamination costs thus getting nuclear power to be seen in a more favourable light...
http://www.ukace.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=37
My view is that I don't think that our civilisation is stable enough to commit to the long term consequences of nuclear waste etc.. There are few buildings in Britain which are more than 500 years old yet the sites for nuclear power stations will be required to be safeguarded for hundreds of years. Governments, banks, insurance companies currently think only in terms of years or sometimes a couple of decades.
http://www.ukace.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=37
My view is that I don't think that our civilisation is stable enough to commit to the long term consequences of nuclear waste etc.. There are few buildings in Britain which are more than 500 years old yet the sites for nuclear power stations will be required to be safeguarded for hundreds of years. Governments, banks, insurance companies currently think only in terms of years or sometimes a couple of decades.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Also Mark Lynas. And some American guy whose name escapes me at the moment.
There's a bit of stampede of self-styled green 'leaders' towards nuclear at the moment.
Personally I'm not a 'proper' anti-nukey (i.e. I would consider it as a way of avoiding climate change, despite its problems) but the figures just don't stack up. It's horrendously expensive, almost always under-performs, crowds out genuinely low-carbon power sources (in two ways, once by displacing the original financial investment, and secondly by grabbing the base-loading role in generation and making all other generation forms artificially more expensive), and imposes massive costs onto the state in the form of underwriting capital costs, underwriting the insurance for disaster (no private company would touch them) and of course disposal of the waste, a cost imposed on future generations unborn.Even today, over half of the DECC budget (£7 billion this year alone) is spent on decommissioning and waste disposal costs from our crappy little post-war nuclear programme. What happens to that figure in the future with this new generation of stations, god knows.
But what's pretty much certain is that a load of dodgy corporate politigarchs will have walked off with a huge great shed-load of money for building and operating the stupid things.
There's a bit of stampede of self-styled green 'leaders' towards nuclear at the moment.
Personally I'm not a 'proper' anti-nukey (i.e. I would consider it as a way of avoiding climate change, despite its problems) but the figures just don't stack up. It's horrendously expensive, almost always under-performs, crowds out genuinely low-carbon power sources (in two ways, once by displacing the original financial investment, and secondly by grabbing the base-loading role in generation and making all other generation forms artificially more expensive), and imposes massive costs onto the state in the form of underwriting capital costs, underwriting the insurance for disaster (no private company would touch them) and of course disposal of the waste, a cost imposed on future generations unborn.Even today, over half of the DECC budget (£7 billion this year alone) is spent on decommissioning and waste disposal costs from our crappy little post-war nuclear programme. What happens to that figure in the future with this new generation of stations, god knows.
But what's pretty much certain is that a load of dodgy corporate politigarchs will have walked off with a huge great shed-load of money for building and operating the stupid things.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I can't because I can't now find the sodding thing, it's got amalgamated in some ghastly DECC public consultation bullshit on their website. I read it ages ago.
The best I can find in a quick flick about is this http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/2050_sim/2050_sim.aspx which lists the 17 pathways but doesn't do a breakdown, it must be in there somewhere.
revol68
what, fucking what?
There was me thinking that another way of lower energy consumption would be to replace an economic system based on constant production and growth for it's own sake with one based on human needs.
just a thought like...
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Simon Fairlie takes a swipe at Monbiot in The Land
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/thanks-george-no-thanks-1
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/thanks-george-no-thanks-1
bi0boy
Power User
And we'll achieve that before this nuclear power station is built how exactly?
Similar threads
