Page 4 of 4

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:34 pm
by Jeffstclair
If it gets too pricey to decommission Sellafield , They can just change it's name It's worked in the past .... jeff....

An explanation

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:17 pm
by Ray
I feel that it is difficult for some people to understand the argument, so I have published a further video in English to explain:

I hope this helps.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:36 pm
by Rej
Thanks Ray. The trouble is that we have one lot of clever people telling us one thing and another lot telling us another which is diametrically opposed. Maybe I am naive but I assume that both their opinions are based on measurements of some kind and that they are sincere in their beliefs.

So, what are we to think? For what it's worth and at the risk of sticking my neck out, here is the opinion of a non-clever person. It is based on no measurements whatsoever but is sincere.

The climate is changing. It always has and it always will. (Is it childish to mention the ice age?) Are the changes being significantly influenced by the activities of mankind? I don’t know but I intuitively feel that man’s activities are relatively puny on a planetary scale. I may well be wrong but it doesn’t matter because political and economic imperatives make it impossible to do anything about it. Britain may pursue it’s present policy until the lights go out in a country littered with expensive, derelict, long since redundant wind mills but much of the rest of the world will continue as it is and Britain’s sacrifice will be less than a drop in the ocean. (It goes without saying that Greece should give no priority whatever to green solutions but should power it’s hoped for recovery from catastrophe using the cheapest energy it can generate.)

If we forget about climate change and say that we must change from burning fossil fuels because they are a finite resource which will one day run out (and because we would love to be less dependant on the Middle East) then I’m sorry to say that in the opinion of this non-clever person the only feasible answer is nuclear. I know ... I know ... I know ... but the horrendous list of costs, problems and dangers will simply have to be dealt with if we hope to produce all the energy we need. It’s not just a question of the power we use now but if we are going to get rid of fossil fuels entirely then the next time you sit in a traffic jam on the M25, or M6 or try to negotiate a route through any big city imagine all those cars (and lorries?) are powered by electricity and will be driven home to be plugged into the mains. A vast additional demand which a few solar panels or tidal barriers or wave powered systems are not going to satisfy.

I suppose in reality that we are talking about some combination of nuclear and fossil fuels. What I can't envisage is a significant contribution from 'renewables'.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:45 pm
by Kilkis
I'm not sure that the video clarifies the argument. I wholly agree that the science of climate change and the policies adopted because of that science are not one and the same thing but they are linked.

If man made atmospheric carbon dioxide is a significant driver in changing the world climate then de-carbonisation of pollution being pumped into the atmosphere would seem to be the only solution.

Obviously anybody who believes that the climate is not warming would not see a problem at all. All they have to do is present sufficient evidence to prove that it is not warming. Obviously that body of evidence would need to be greater than the existing body of evidence that it is warming.

Anybody who thinks that the climate is warming but man made carbon dioxide is not the cause would not see a need to de-carbonise pollution. All they have to do is present a viable alternative mechanism and sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their mechanism is more likely than the greenhouse gas evidence.

Anybody who thinks de-carbonisation is necessary but renewables are not the answer needs to present the evidence as to which method is best.

An interesting comment by Lord Lawson, that carbon energy sources are the cheapest and so must be used to support developing countries, misses one important fact. The total cost of the carbon economy is not priced in at the pump. If you bring every citizen of developing countries like China, India, Africa and South America up the same level of energy consumption per capita as Europe and North America using only carbon sources then the real costs will become very apparent.


Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:47 pm
by George
The forecasts for China's need for petrol alone in the coming decade is staggering, and when the production of an average car is 20 metric tonnes of carbon then the figures start going exponential. If we all switch to electric cars then we must have nuclear - nothing else could cope with the demand. This being said, we must always try something different - attempts to produce hybrid fuel from algae so we don't have to tear down the rainforests seems like a good example - people tend to pour derision on these schemes without offering alternatives.
Then again, there is nothing more disconcerting than when protesters are portrayed in a similar light as a Chinese fire drill.
I get worried about the rate the glaciers are melting at, but then they've been there for millions of years, and maybe encountered this many times in the past.

We must keep trying, because if we don't, then we have failed.