Green Power

[Dan Salter]

The thread about the new coal powered station going ahead in my neighbourhood reminded me of a documentary we watched at the end of last term at college/uni...Filmed a little while back before the whole "Global warming" thing exploded by Paul Theroux ( Louis brother )..all about climate change and global warming...Some very serious ecologists/scientists and conservation people were in it...and by the end of the brilliant doc the overall feeling was that the only way to save the planet and the greenest form of energy is to go back to Nuclear Power..which sounds rediculous at first after the many years of trying to get rid...but when you listened to the facts etc and the pros and cons....ok...so once in a blue moon a chenoble might happen ( unlikely now they have learnt and improved technology) but losing a few hundred thousand people over losing the entire planet actually starts to make sense...of the 32 people in our "Countryside Management and Landscape Management" class...the majority agreed that it made sense.....

Thought this would be a good debate starter and sorry if its been covered elsewhere?...

Dan

[ChrisJB]

I have to say, I have been converted to nuclear too. After those ugly useless windmills began ruining our uplands, I had to look at alternatives and was convinced by the nuclear argument.

Regards, Chris

[Dan Salter]

Yes me too Chris...it amazes me that im actually saying the words but it does seem like the greenest fuel source right now!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

Yes me too Chris...it amazes me that im actually saying the words but it does seem like the greenest fuel source right now!

Leaving aside the poisonous waste issue - what are we going to do when the uranium runs out ? - it is a finite resource and estimates vary as to how much is left - based on current consumption and forecast increase it should run out 30 years or so after the oil does

so you see nuclear isnt the "answer" - all it does is give us more time to answer the question , if you see what i mean.

[Dan Salter]

Yeah valid point eeyore....

I dont think Nuclear is the "answer" i just think right here right now its the greenest option until they can think of something better...

[The Black Rabbit]

Remember the "Nuclear Power. No thanks" Smiley badge in the 70's and '80s?
I always thought that was quite funny - having an anti-nuclear ("newkular" as dubbya pronounces it), logo of the biggest nuclear reactor there is!
Designed by a child I've now just read...
Doug

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

The thread about the new coal powered station going ahead in my neighbourhood reminded me of a documentary we watched at the end of last term at college/uni...Filmed a little while back before the whole "Global warming" thing exploded by Paul Theroux ( Louis brother )..all about climate change and global warming...Some very serious ecologists/scientists and conservation people were in it...and by the end of the brilliant doc the overall feeling was that the only way to save the planet and the greenest form of energy is to go back to Nuclear Power..which sounds rediculous at first after the many years of trying to get rid...but when you listened to the facts etc and the pros and cons....ok...so once in a blue moon a chenoble might happen ( unlikely now they have learnt and improved technology) but losing a few hundred thousand people over losing the entire planet actually starts to make sense...of the 32 people in our "Countryside Management and Landscape Management" class...the majority agreed that it made sense.....

Thought this would be a good debate starter and sorry if its been covered elsewhere?...

Dan

I agree with you to a point Dan.
But its a bit "nimbyish" this subject.
Oh sure, we can lose a few thousand people in the Ukraine with something like Chernobyl - we'll sacrifice them for the sake of the planet, but would we feel the same if it was people from Manchester, or Swansea, or Dundee for example.
I doubt it.

Doug

[Dan Salter]

Those were the words of the scientist on the doc...not mine...but i kind of agree with him...but i see your point...although i still feel in the grand scheme of things....risk over another chernobyle (or manchester....or Canterbury) is still a better gamble than losing an entire human race...

But i do see your side of the argument too....even if i dont know what the word "nimbyish" means? ha ha

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Dan Salter

Those were the words of the scientist on the doc...not mine...but i kind of agree with him...but i see your point...although i still feel in the grand scheme of things....risk over another chernobyle (or manchester....or Canterbury) is still a better gamble than losing an entire human race...

But i do see your side of the argument too....even if i dont know what the word "nimbyish" means? ha ha

Heh heh!
Just added "ish" to "nimby".
Maybe I'm turning into dubbya myself?!

Yep. Dan. I do know what you mean, but I'm always a little wary of groups of people (or professional individuals, mind) who insist we MUST go nuclear (as an example), but on the quiet, privately object to the next nuclear power station being built anywhere near them.
I'd find out more about the scientist who wrote the doc, and see if he has the conviction to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk also.
Maybe he has. Very impressive if so.

Doug.

[Dan Salter]

erm...doesnt really help as i dont know what the hell "Nimby" means either or who the hell "dubbya" is?.....lol i must be too old.

Id like to see the doc again...i cant remember the bloomin title other than it was Paul Theroux...and the scientist guy was some huge head of something which made his statement even more amazing...im sure someone on here will enlighten us. I do remember the guy got fired shortly after...lol..