Long standing environmentalist James Lovelock recently peformed an astonishing u-turn and started to back nuclear power as our best way of preventing global catastrophe due to ever increasing CO2 emissions.
We've now got the latest in what is a local whispering campaign against wind farms, with a shaky hashing together of potential problems that they may cause.
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14452741%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=rescue%2dteams%2dtest%2dwindfarm%2dsafety-name_page.html
In trying to address these problems, I'll try to address these "concerns" as follows:
- If there are serious problems with interference and a danger to shipping then it may mean we should only site wind farms on land (which is cheaper anyway)
- The RSPB are only alluding to "potential" problems. Nothing definite yet. I'm sure educated RSPB people know that climate change is a much bigger issue and that the habitats for these birds are under threat already
- People are complaining that it ruins their view. This is a typical case of "not in my back yard". This is why it is vital that we get some popular understanding on how we should go forward. Otherwise MPs like Ben Chapman will u-turn to support nuclear power simply to prevent "undesirable" wind farms in his constituency
In the short term, the push has to be toward energy efficiency, but we need to make it clear that there are only two realistic goals in the medium term, nuclear or wind, with the remaining capacity generated by gas (with a locally sourced coal back up in the event of some supply-side disaster).
Even with existing nuclear power stations, it will only take one Chernobyl type disaster (or terrorist attack) to render most of Britain uninhabitable. It has already produced over 5 MILLION TONNES of high, intermediate and low level radioactive waste stored in "temporary" facilities in Britain.
Wind energy is local, clean and without impact other than the points raised above. I know what I would prefer. In an ideal world, those objecting to the wind farms would be doing so with a low level radioactive waste store as the alternative, but people are being given false choices by the mainstream media.
Any views or additional info?
We've now got the latest in what is a local whispering campaign against wind farms, with a shaky hashing together of potential problems that they may cause.
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14452741%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=rescue%2dteams%2dtest%2dwindfarm%2dsafety-name_page.html In trying to address these problems, I'll try to address these "concerns" as follows:
- If there are serious problems with interference and a danger to shipping then it may mean we should only site wind farms on land (which is cheaper anyway)
- The RSPB are only alluding to "potential" problems. Nothing definite yet. I'm sure educated RSPB people know that climate change is a much bigger issue and that the habitats for these birds are under threat already
- People are complaining that it ruins their view. This is a typical case of "not in my back yard". This is why it is vital that we get some popular understanding on how we should go forward. Otherwise MPs like Ben Chapman will u-turn to support nuclear power simply to prevent "undesirable" wind farms in his constituency
In the short term, the push has to be toward energy efficiency, but we need to make it clear that there are only two realistic goals in the medium term, nuclear or wind, with the remaining capacity generated by gas (with a locally sourced coal back up in the event of some supply-side disaster).
Even with existing nuclear power stations, it will only take one Chernobyl type disaster (or terrorist attack) to render most of Britain uninhabitable. It has already produced over 5 MILLION TONNES of high, intermediate and low level radioactive waste stored in "temporary" facilities in Britain.
Wind energy is local, clean and without impact other than the points raised above. I know what I would prefer. In an ideal world, those objecting to the wind farms would be doing so with a low level radioactive waste store as the alternative, but people are being given false choices by the mainstream media.
Any views or additional info?
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Alternative power sources, non-polluting, non-nuclear, non-fossil based.
24.07.2004 10:10
"The price for deadly nuclear power is astronomic - at least 450 per cent more expensive than coal, 350 per cent more expensive than gas, and over 300 per cent more expensive than oil. Common sense would see dangerous, unnecessary nuclear power phased out as it has been in Denmark and Sweden and is being in Germany and more countries throughout the world."
"Britain needs a long term integrated energy policy based on a deep mine coal industry which is publicly owned and controlled, together with renewable forms of energy such as wind, wave, tide, geothermal and solar power."
*** Manifesto quotes.
I happen to believe we should be researching 'hydrogen' power production, for example you can run a car, after it's been converted on water. Sounds cranky don't it, but yes if you use electrolysis to split off water into hydrogen and oxygen it's component parts you can burn it in a normal combustion (petrol engine) after modification and all it produces out the exhaust is oxygen and water. We could build hydrogen power stations on the coasts to do the same thing, use electrolysis to split off HO2 into hydrogen and oxygen and burn the hydrogen and create cheap, non-polluting energy.
Kai
Mr Doesn't know when enough is enough.
e-mail:
.
Its about money ( again )
24.07.2004 11:30
US Stand at COP9 promoting eco warrior G Bush, nuclear fuel, and carbon trading.
were promoting Dubya as some kind of eco warrior. The wind farms look OK in Cornwall and nobody seems to have a problem with them- indeed they seem quite fond of them and they don't seem to be killing the wildlife.
One argument is that it seems to be mainly rich relocated reactionaries and rich landowners
( property is still theft you thieving bastards )that have this problem - and they are the ones that are contributing most to climate change through their egregious consumption. they always seem to get some third rate celebrity nutter to help their cause e.g. David Bellamy ( or Jeanette Winterson for foxhunting ).
It is funny that it is easier to build a whole load of holiday chalets, mega supermarkets, or a Barrett Homes estate ( half of those fuckers must have been built on 'green belt' ( what a joke ) land ) than it is to build a low impact dwelling without getting shit from the money grabbing establishemnt bastards ( whether English Heritage ( carpark mania twats ) bent councils ( full of 'entrepeneurs' in the construction industry and general fraudsters etc. ).
Burn Camden Council Burn
Hydrogen production ?
26.07.2004 11:07
In regards to hydrogen, this doesn't mean anything ! In the same way that some claim that nuclear energy is clean, ignoring the process of obtaining and transforming the nuclear fuel which isn't clean at all, hydrogen is as clean as the way it is produced. "electrolysis", splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, is a process that requires electricity. How is that electricity generated ? Hydrogen is a practical mean to stock and transport energy, but it has to be created !
trewp
www.yes2wind.com
26.07.2004 11:24
j
Homepage:
http://www.yes2wind.co.uk
Nuclear folly
27.07.2004 12:05
Incidentally, another £600 million of subsidy has been spent on a nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield that has produced exactly nothing in way of income for the nuclear industry. Pouring good money after bad, the government is expected to continue to fund this non-operational facility until next year, and that is just the financial aspect.
This plant's viability is entirely dependent on sending shipments of reprocessed MOX half way around the world to Japan. Japan has already said that it will be buying no MOX until 2007 and even then it is going to come from France. Aside from the fact that transporting nuclear fuel through shipping lanes often frequented by pirates is a bad idea, this means that plant will be doing exactly jack until 2007. Another £600 million wasted.
pingupete
If wind is the answer then someone is asking the wrong question
11.11.2004 18:39
Due to the need for constant back up they have not and never will cause the shut down of a single coal fired power station boiler.
In fact the more wind turbines that are installed , the more it is likely that more nukes will have to be built.
Windfarms are the biggest scam since the South Sea bubble of 1720, that burst in 1721 and the only question now is when this one will burst.
Ben Palmer
e-mail:
ben@skyecamp.com
Homepage:
http://www.skyecamp.com