pert Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 As an intersting aside to all this, the development of renewable energy would be a lot further advanced in the UK if it hadn't been for the fact that the "Alternative Energy Authority" (a government-funded body) of the 1980s was governed by the Atomic Energy Authority, who didn't really want anything else stealing their limelight, or appearing less deadly or that. I remember documentaries on the subject at the time, though I'm not sure if I can really call it a fact, as Google holds no records....... As a species, I reckon we're pretty goosed, though. It's not the energy sources that are the problem, but the unneccessary ways in which we use them. Our economy depends on the fact that we make and consume a whole bunch of slester (damn your automated asterisks) that we don't really need. No government really wants to rock that boat. They come up with ineffectual initiatives like "The Carbon Trust" (christ...) to make a bit of a fuss whilst achieving nothing. The idea of being "carbon neutral" is a personal favourite, where it's okay to drive big cars, have Xmas lights to rival Blackpool and put down fresh laminate flooring every week, just as long as you plant the odd tree.... I bet they were up all night dreaming that one up. If they ever wanted to REALLY change anything, taxation would be the obvious answer. That would stop unneccessary comsumption in it's tracks, but who'd vote for that? Perhaps we need a benign dictatorship.... The idea that humans will save the world simply because it's the right thing to do , has no historical precedent. Anyone know any good websites for cheap flights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 id rather have 50 windmills in the feild out side my house than a power station Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Maybe we could replace the SIC with a dictator. Going on with energy I have to point out as others have that wind and wave power are not reliable. Indeed the coldest Shetland nights are often calm. Tidal energy is at least reliable although it can have serious side effects on the environment of estuaries. Not all bad news though. If we cant get clean nuclear energy, and now that Bush has decided the US is not going to depend on foreign oil that might just happen, the answer has to be finding good safe ways to store renewable energy such as the pumped water storage scheme at Dinorwic in Wales. Spare electricity at night pumped water up a mountain and at peak times the water powered a hydro electric plant. Simple and safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFly Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 A few general elections ago, the Monster Raving Loony Party made a manifesto promise to harness the energy contained in all the hot air that comes out of parliament. Surely an immense and unending resource! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 What the heck, go the whole hog and make them run on generator hamster wheels to earn their keep, while producing hot-air, and all the planet's problems are solved. Mind you that is a lot of CO2 and would need to be contained. Maybe the new parliement building should have been built on the moon, it probably would have been cheaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim-jam Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Here's an interesting article from the bbc websiteNuclear industry looks to FinnlandA consortium of energy consuming companies have set up a not-for-profit orginisation that is building a new nuclear plant, with no government money. According to the article, local towns have been competing to host the underground nuclear waste store! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 now that Bush has decided the US is not going to depend on foreign oil... i wondered what bush meant by that... probably that all that oil in afghanistan and iraq is no longer considered foreign since it's now effectively under US control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 And soon to be; the US 54th federal state of iran too, if we all live long enough. Or is that 55? i'm losing count. (sorry. that has little or nothing to do with nuclear vs renewables does it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergear Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 A link to a reasonably optimistic article on the BBC website. Not sure about the slightly dubious sub-heading but the article is interesting enough. Highlights the fact that renewables are reliable and economically preferable - worth a read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4693600.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Nuclear is not inevitable. People bemoaning the lack of advance in renewables - the chief reason for that is lack of government subsidy in comparison with other energy sources. Provide the conditions for investment, the private sector will be all over renewables like a rash. Also a very valid point made - cutting consumption. Absolutely critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 according to this article the fears of a winter fuel crisis due to rocketing fuel prices mean something is inevitable... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4454468.stm though just how they intend to knock up a few nuclear power stations before xmas is anybody's guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 A poor day for the 'green' cause.... NIMBY whilst... G.W.B.-"Ahm tellin' yah, If it's cawled new clear energy it musht be good, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergear Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 (Just to say, the lines of blue text in Njugle's contribution immediately above are both links to relevant articles. I'm sure you mostly sussed that out for yourselves, but I'm just adding this for the sake of anyone who didn't. The articles are about: 1) A wind-farm project in Cumbria which was knocked-back by the planning authority, and 2) Bush's nuclear deal with India.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 id ratehr have 50 windmills out my back door then a power station Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergear Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Yes, quite. I wonder why the planning authority didn't "knock-back" Cumbria's massive nuclear power station (Sellafield), for exactly the same reasons that they DID knock-back the wind-farm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now