Slashdot Mirror

nuclear power, a safe, clean, mature power generation technology

On paper, yes. In practice, no.

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/voodoo_economics.pdf

Nor have they seen people cycling to work at the Shell Centre on the south bank.

What? You think 2% of Shell employees cycling to work balances out the fact that shell is one of the most polluting companies in the world?

Umm... Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose nuclear power, and support renewables instead. I wouldn't call either of them NIMBY groups. I'd put this one down to different people making different conclusions based on uncertain risks.

I could not find the exact quote. I believe it was on the Department of Energy website, but my search skills are letting me a bit down right now. I did however find a number of related quotes which give an indication.

So what can you do? Unplug things or use power bars with "on/off" switches to operate appliances like VCR's and computers. Replace your light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. You can save 47 watts per bulb and they last for 5 years!! If the $10 or 15 per month that these changes can save you isn't impressive enough, this statistic might be: If Phantoms were not around, we could do without 7 or 8 nuclear power plants on this continent. This would save us a billion watts of power each!

On a more serious, grid-connected note, our nation wastes about 43 billion kilowatt-hours of energy on phantom loads yearly. This is enough electrical energy to totally provide the countries of Greece, Pery, and Vietnam for one year.

Around one nuclear power station in the UK has to be kept running in order to provide power for appliances not in use and on `standby' mode. Around 24 nuclear plants are kept running throughout the industrialised world for this purpose! Legislation is currently being considered by the EU.

If all TV and VCR in the US were plugged in only when they were used, it would save American nearly $1 billion dollars and about 9 million tonnes CO2.

Yep, the true greens still hate nuclear power. Why? Pragmatism... not idealism.

Have you read any of the arguments presented by the NRDC, FOE (Friends of the Earth) or Greenpeace? Here's a couple (sorry for the pdfs):
NRDC
FOE

Nuclear power is an unrealistic way to slow down global warming, poses more safety risks, is a national security threat and costs way more than switching to 100% renewable energy. Unfortunately, the US Government has a habit of illegally blocking renewable technologies such as wind power. Despite what the mainstream corporate media says we can meet the energy needs of the entire US with wind and solar power. Both the cost of wind and solar are rapidly dropping. Why should we punish taxpayers to support nuclear, when you can let clean renewable technology take over without doing anything?

P.S.
F--- the F---ing birds that are stupid enough to fly into wind turbines (or into the side of buildings for that matter). True environmentalists don't give a shit about birds when our oceans are turning to acid.

"That graph doesn't mean anything. Have a look at some global ones"

Perhaps if this were an isolated case, this graph would mean very little, but there are many cities in the US experiencing long term temperature declines.

"Early days yet; the target date is 2010. You might notice that those countries are at least cutting emissions (unlike the US)"

Not Spain:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/spa.htm

Not the UK:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/uk_ca rbon_dioxide_emission_26022004.html

And not the EU as a whole:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4115670. stm

The EU isn't gonna make it to Kyoto compliance. They're not on track, and unless there's some major economic/political disturbance, they're not going to get on track.

"Citation please. The US is actually quite bad at this."

The original article had one, but here is another:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg02rpt/gas.html

Carbon intensity has been dropping 14.52% per decade 1950-2000 in the US, even with cheap gas during much of that time.

Try here.

Here's an interesting link about tidal energy
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/severn_bar rage_lagoons.pdf in the UK.
Basically it comes out as one single barrage can generate 5% of the UK's energy, or that the alternative scheme of multiple tidal lagoons in the same area could generate 7% of the UK's energy.

There are runaway models that support a self feeding or positive feed back model for temperature rise. Astronomers have been trying to explain Venus' atmosphere and temperature for decades. The most common theory is the Green House effect.
Venus Facts.

While I believe that there are greater climatological forces (greater than Yuppies with SUV's) at work which cause up and down cycles in global temperature; life in general has had a very marked hand in contributing to these changes. The most radical planetary change attributed to life forces has to do with early bacteria and algae giving the earth its oxygen rich atmosphere.
Early life formsand O2

I do support using more efficient energy technologies as these not only help slow down CO2 emissions (which may or may not contribute to global warming) but more importantly reduce sulfur, ozone, and nitrate emissions which are known to cause acid rain and contribute to air pollution. I have been doing my part by replacing old light bulbs with energy efficient ones and by better insulating my house and running an attic fan in stead of the AC when weather permits, etc. If everyone makes lots of little changes then this will have a big impact on our overall quality of life. I'm not talking about shivering in the corner during the winter because you shouldn't run your heater but the stakes are too high not to pay attention and try to take the best actions even if the data is incomplete. Baby steps.
Climate change

Our delicately balanced hormone system regulates much of our bodies. It governs, for example, the way children grow into adults, our sexual characteristics and our day-to-day bodily functions, such as the way our bodies burn oxygen to make energy and the way we digest food. Hormone disrupting chemicals are able to imitate or disrupt the action of these natural hormones. It is increasingly being discovered that more and more chemicals in everyday use are hormone disrupters.

The UK will pay a high price in than high electric costs when it uglifies it's landscapes with windmills and it's shores with tideal generators.

Much of the proposed wind energy will come from large offshore sites in terratorial water, (Rockall is not only useful for cod fishing;-) which will be only barely visable from the shore. The UK (and ireland) are well endowed with wind an wave energy and consiquenlty are in an almost unique possition to be able to take good adavantage of the excess power while the technology is still young and inefficient. As this Government Consultation [pdf] points out.

Wave power schemes are idealy suited for incorperation with the offshore wind, as the infrastructure is there, and they would also provide some protection for the turbines in such a harsh environment.

As for tidal generators, such as the Severn barrage, the visual impact of the scheme would be minimal when compared to a bridge (which these projects usually incorporate). Though they have some environmental issues they are easily comparable to those of hydro schemes e.g..

Besides I would much rather look out on a wind farm than a gas platform or coal power plant, knowing that I was breathing clean fresh air.

Sorry but I don't think it helps for people to keep redefining Globalism/Globalization based on their own bias or need for a snappy book title.

The global deregulation of financial markets, growth of multinational corporations and the accompanying loss of social and environmental standards is generally known as Corporate Globalisation (or Globalization if you live in the US).

The US aren't solely to blame for this as many multinational corporations are just that - transnational. They have no particular loyalty to any country, government or body - only their shareholders.

Many of their shareholders are the big banks and investment houses who are in turn responsible to us - their investors (anyone who has a pension, mortgage or even an overdraft). It's up to us to put pressure on them if we want multinational corporations to become more socially and environmentally responsible (and recent polls in the UK suggest that the majority of us do).

You could do worst than ask Barclays, HSBC and NatWest why they are financing companies that cause rainforest destruction...

Sorry but I don't think it helps for people to keep redefining Globalism/Globalization based on their own bias or need for a snappy book title.

The global deregulation of financial markets, growth of multinational corporations and the accompanying loss of social and environmental standards is generally known as Corporate Globalisation (or Globalization if you live in the US).

The US aren't solely to blame for this as many multinational corporations are just that - transnational. They have no particular loyalty to any country, government or body - only their shareholders.

Many of their shareholders are the big banks and investment houses who are in turn responsible to us - their investors (anyone who has a pension, mortgage or even an overdraft). It's up to us to put pressure on them if we want multinational corporations to become more socially and environmentally responsible (and recent polls in the UK suggest that the majority of us do).

You could do worst than ask Barclays, HSBC and NatWest why they are financing companies that cause rainforest destruction...

CCTV is a useful tool in crime fighting, but it is not a panacea or the best use of funds in every case. The authorities should be subject to the same data protection laws as individuals and coroporations.

Friends of the Earth UK's site on Genetically modified Organisms

UK centric but most briefings have a full bibliography