Sustainable energy without hot air

[SeanMacGabhann]

Of course they were - but remember how much they said regulation was red tape they could do without and the freer they were to do business the better for everyone? And it was a brave government that stood up to them for fear of losing all that "talent" to other countries. That mantra hasn't changed much...

[Huguenot]

Surely we're in danger of cutting off our noses etc.?

The first internal combustion engines were the size of houses and equally threatening. The current ones are small enough to fit in a remote controlled car.

We can't expect to refine the technology if we don't employ it?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Totally Safe. Nothing to fear at all. Oh no

[????]

It's not the claim is it Sean. Wind, wave, sun, none of it's going to deliver what we need for decades so either we change our lifestyles dramatically - think no foreighhn holiday, imports by sea and slowly, reduction in plastics, ration electricity, get rid of cars and that includes taxis, etc etc or we have to take these 'risks' - them the choices. Guardian readers seem to think a few hugely innefficient, expensive and actually huge resource using (to manufacture and service) wind farms in the Thames estuary and a barrier in the Severn and it'll all be Hunky Dory (*genuine use not Bowie song referrence) back to 24 hour electricity and Tuscany mini-breaks.

Wind farmer developers - white hats, Huzzah,drinks all round

Nuclear Energy - black hats, global conspiracy by capitalits etc.

We've a choice and neither's easy.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, it is the claim by many

But no, on your main point I agree. Some big, hard choices ahead. But I'm not too keen on the easy comparisons you make either. It's not that I think wind power people = lovely, and nuclear power = Bad Men!

And generalising about Guardian readers (again!) and putting words in their mouth still hacks me off. So to be clear, my starting point is this:

Regardless of the impending shortage of fossil fuels, I think nuclear is a no-go for the simple reason that we can't handle it. We just can't. I like the ingenuity of it I like much of the thinking behind it, but we aren't able to safely produce it and I do believe we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by going down that road. However well intentioned

So, what are the alternatives. None viable really - not yet. But as we still have the intelligence and sufficient (I'm hoping) energy to research further (and big strides have been made in recent decades) alternatives I would rather we did that

[SeanMacGabhann]

And by "going down that road" I pretty much mean The Road (Cormac McCarthy)

No-one wants to give up any of the things you mention but it's all pointless having them for 20 years only to find out we've poisoned everything

I know my position is open to accusations of fear-mongering etc, but it really is the equivalent of betting the whole house...

[????]

How many people have been killed by Nuclear Energy? How many people have been damaged by it? PLEASE NOTE genuine question not an argument. If we could then look at these figures plus think about the 40 years we've had Nuclear Energy. Then look at rates of improvement in technology and delivery as Hugenot says RE the car are we just to dismiss it? It seems pure Luddism to completley dismiss this when Global warming may have a catastrophic effect within this century - and to be frank much of the 'lefts' response to any mention of it feels like a hangover from the 60s OHh Nuclear Energy BAD. Remember that generation used to gleefully wander around chanting "Mao, Mao, Mao tse Tung".

PS I meant Guardian column writers rather than readers, so apologies a crappy generalisation...but to some of us The Guardian is a Daily Mail of sorts in a far more 'right on' way naturally.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm quite uncomfortable with the ongoing reference to newspapers and left v right debate. Historically there has been a bit of that but for you to keep referring to it suggests you are the one clinging on to the past not me. Let's have the "Guardian = The Mail" debate elsewhere...

How many people have been killed by nuclear energy? Not many as far as I can tell... Is that the sole question?

Believe me, I want an easy, safe, clean option. If nuclear is it, count me in. But to buy into it at the moment appears to me to be like listening to financial advisers in 2004 telling me not to worry about financial bubbles. "Economic luddites" is a phrase I remember

But if you are insisting there is no/little risk, and that a few dozen deaths are comparable to any other industry then who am I to argue.

Radiation levels? Cancer increases?

The completion date for the confinement structure for Chernobyl is years behind date - scheduled for 2012 at time of writing. This is a project to limit the damage of a plant that went wrong in 1986. This suggests wilful neglect on a massive scale... a lot of people for many years going "the risks are tiny, tiny"... "whats that? oh..."

And I am meant to believe that things have progressed? I have an open mind but I have yet to see anything to convince me that the rewards outweigh the risks on nuclear

[????]

WHO figures on deaths from Chernobyl .....reported in The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

Chernobyl was 23 bleedin years ago, using a nuclear technology that was considered highly dangerous in the west even then and, of course, was functioning under the madness of a command economy...run by the state with no checks and balances. France gets over 60% of its electricity from nuclear power and many other countries have pretty high levels, some risk, yes, catastophic risk? Well, not convinced, and given that our climate is likely to take us to catastrophic levels in about 100 years, if not earlier, then we maybe can take those risks. We should certainly lbre brave enough to look at them without the shrill mantra of "Chernobyl, Chernobyl" every time nuclear power is bought up.

By the way, Google deaths from mining in say just China last year and then come back on dangerous nuclear power.

To dismiss it as a solution to the the massive dangers of global warming is Luddism pure and simple.

PS the media argument is ridiculous - and a place for elsewhere - but if Guardian readers are really so uncomfortable with criticism of the paper I suggest we lose say references to neocons, Fox and The Daily Mail which are banded round as 'givens' of stupidity fairly readily on here. Or don't the rules work both ways?...as you know I think that Fox and The Daily Mail are both full of idiocy but is The Guardian sacrosanct?

[SeanMacGabhann]

But why still persist with death rates when I have already said that isn't my main concern (at the moment)

And comparing death rates in Chinese Mines is as useful as comparing death rates from car accidents and terrorism - it's not pertinent to the argument

Yes France is merrily building and using nuclear power stations and to date there is no problem - no argument there. BUt are you genuinely satisfied with what's happening with the waste? You don't think that's going to be a jack-in-the-box surprise for someone down the line? And if everyone piles in and goes nuclear at the same levels as the french that's a F*** load more waste no-one knows what to do with. Or am I missing something?

PS the media argument is ridiculous but you're the one the keeps snatching it out of the ether and I merely ask why? And accusations such as "Guardian readers are really so uncomfortable with criticism of the paper" annoy me because I don't recall any defense of the paper - I just said using guardian-readers as lazy shorthand was just that.

[HAL9000]

India nuclear leak 'inside job'