Consumer embargo against UK

democrates

In response to the UK decision to pursue the building of further nuclear power stations I am boycotting all UK businesses selling into Ireland with the exception of those dedicated to ecological responsibility and fair-trade.

This applies to business as well as personal expenditure.

BuffyBot

Good for you!

Now, off to Tesco with me!

murphaph

democrates wrote:

In response to the UK decision to pursue the building of further nuclear power stations I am boycotting all UK businesses selling into Ireland with the exception of those dedicated to ecological responsibility and fair-trade.

This applies to business as well as personal expenditure.

Whilst I admire a principled person, will you also be boycotting french and other goods and services from other nuclear nations?

mike65

I trust you are penning an angry missive to the government of Finland for thier flagrently selfish attitudes regarding power generation

You'll neeed to copy and paste sveral times over before you've covered all the bases.

from Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Soaring oil prices, uncertain Russian energy supplies and fears of global warming are fuelling a European and global nuclear renaissance just two decades after the Chernobyl disaster shook faith in atomic power.

Fears of energy shortages appear to be trumping anti-nuclear sentiments - even in Germany despite its decision to close all nuclear power stations by 2021.

Most surveys show a 50-50 split and some polls even show a majority of Germans in favour of nuclear power, compared to 65 per cent opposed after the 1986 accident.

'There's a lot more approval for nuclear power than there was 15 years ago,' said Christian Woessner, a spokesman for the German Atomic Forum, a pro-nuclear lobby group. 'We are at the start of a new investment cycle (in Europe.)'

Nuclear power is getting a hard second look not only because of oil prices and alarm over Russia's strong-arm tactics in cutting off natural gas to Ukraine last January. It also could provide a way to cut greenhouse gases blamed in part for global warming.

Andris Piebalgs, the European Union Commissioner in charge of energy, says nuclear power needs to be regarded as part of an 'energy mix' to ensure security for the 25-nation bloc.

'The EU must continue to develop its expertise in the field,' insists Piebalgs.

Numerous European countries are already watering down or reversing laws intended to curtail or abolish nuclear plants. That means many of the 170 nuclear stations operating on the continent, up to the Russian border, will operate far longer than anticipated.

Sweden, 47-per-cent dependent on nuclear power, has repeatedly delayed plans to shut down all its stations, extending some lifelines to 2050, well beyond a 2010 target date.

'Under Swedish law the plants cannot be closed until there is a viable alternative,' explains Woessner.

Switzerland, 32-per-cent dependent on nuclear power, has overturned a moratorium on new nuclear plants.

Belgium, 56-per-cent dependent on nuclear power, has extended its phase-out period for at least another 20 years, although it is unclear if new plants will be built.

'There is a clear and visible change of mood - most governments and political parties are now seriously reconsidering nuclear power,' said an economist at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who asked not to be named.

That means new nuclear plants are again being built across Europe, mirroring trends in the US, where 14 new plants are planned after a 30-year hiatus, and China, where nearly three dozen are set to be built.

New plants are slated to open in Finland in 2009; Romania in 2007, 2013 and 2014; and Bulgaria in 2013. The Czech Republic could build at least two more plants if needed.

The Baltic states, still not connected to the European electricity grid, are determined to pursue self sufficiency because they fear Moscow's political blackmailing tactics.

Lithuania, supported by Latvia and Estonia, is expected to approve a new nuclear station to replace the Chernobyl-type reactor at Ignalina by 2015. Part of the current plant was closed in 2004 and block two will be shut in 2009. Lithuania is 71-per-cent dependent on nuclear power.

Even Ukraine, home to the ill-fated Chernobyl plant and 50-per- cent dependent on nuclear power, is considering a big expansion in the field. Although critics note that Kiev's financing remains totally unclear, the government says it wants to build up to 20 new nuclear power stations.

France, which generates a whopping 78 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, under President Jacques Chirac wants to build third and fourth generation plants to keep its position as the world's top civil nuclear power. A new reactor is slated to open in 2012 in the northern town of Flamanville.

In addition, France is home to an international effort to build the world's biggest experimental fusion reactor. The International Thermonuclear Reactor (ITER) - which is supposed to produce less waste and be safer than normal nuclear plants - has support from the EU, US, China, India, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

France also provides a lightning rod for environmental protests over nuclear waste, a hotly contested issue at Germany's Gorleben facility, for example. It has a reprocessing industry that not only handles waste from abroad, including Germany and Japan, but also helps fund the French nuclear programme.

Britain, after years of backing away, appears poised to join the trend and increase its 20-per-cent dependence on nuclear power.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to to call on private energy companies next month to build the country's next generation of nuclear stations.

However, Europe's largest economy - Germany - is still holding off. Chancellor Angela Merkel and her conservatives support nuclear power but, under the government's grand coalition accord with the Social Democrats (SPD), the ban on new plants and a phase-out of 17 generators by 2021 remains.

But that could change if Merkel is re-elected at the head of a centre-right government without the SPD in coming years.

Get typing.

Mike.

fly_agaric

democrates wrote:

In response to the UK decision to pursue the building of further nuclear power stations I am boycotting all UK businesses selling into Ireland with the exception of those dedicated to ecological responsibility and fair-trade.

This applies to business as well as personal expenditure.

LOL. Funniest thing I've read all day!

Are you going to boycott electricity from the national grid when we interconnect with the UK mainland?:)

Will you be one of the future moaning minnies castigating the govt. for not building a nucular plant or two here if oil + gas start to get very costly and hard to obtain and you can't have your birthright of oodles of electrical gadgets, several hot showers a day, and florida-temperature central heating in every room during the winter?

SeanW

democrates wrote:

In response to the UK decision to pursue the building of further nuclear power stations I am boycotting all UK businesses selling into Ireland with the exception of those dedicated to ecological responsibility and fair-trade.

This applies to business as well as personal expenditure.

Man I needed a laugh today and you're post sure provided it.

Tell me, if you were Tony Blair, what would YOU have done?

You could do what Ireland does ... and burn Natural Gas. Most of which comes from Russia, which is very unstable, and likes to throw it's weight around, not a strategically sensible choice.
Or oil, the price of which is totally unstable, is in very short supply and has already been the cause of several wars ... one of which Britain is a particpant in
And don't get me started on the filthiness of coal, although it's plentiful fuel source, so are the pollutants that its burning causes, acidic compounds (which cause acid rain (ask the Norwegian government which spends NOK100,000,000 each year liming its lakes and watercourses to keep its aquatic environment alive)) mercury, arsenic, and radioactive emissions far exceeding that of nuclear, enough air pollution to reduce atmospheric visibility if enough coal is being burned, that's before we get to the hundreds of thousands who have died in coal mining accidents over the years and the many more who have died from coal-dust exposure.
All fossil fuels contribute significantly to the emissions of greenhouse gas, directly.

So what else is there if not Nuclear Power? How else is Britain going to produce an abundance of baseline load electricity, while keeping to it's Kyoto and climate change commitments? Remember Ireland has no nuclear power but our Kyoto strategy is to buy carbon credits from Germany ...

Renewables, due to their high cost, limited geographical viability and dependence on the weather, can never be more than a niche product.

It's all well and fine to say "Tony Blair is this and Tony Blair is that," but the real question is what would YOU do if YOU were in his shoes? I for one, can not see how the British PM could have done anything else in good consciense.

BTW if you're going to boycott British companies, then to be fair, you're also going to have to boycott anything sold by/made in the USA, Canada, France, Finland, Germany, China, India, Japan, The Netherlands, the Ukraine, Russia, and those are just the places I can of off-hand.

Oh and, if we ever suffer a gas shock, you'll have to boycott the ESB as well because they'll be importing Nuclear Electrcity from Britain and France.

You're gonna be a rich man because if you boycott anyone whose country uses nuclear power you're not going to have much to spend money on ... except maybe your share of Ireland's Kyoto fines ...

zuma

SeanW wrote:

Man I needed a laugh today and you're post sure provided it.

Tell me, if you were Tony Blair, what would YOU have done?

You could do what Ireland does ... and burn Natural Gas. Most of which comes from Russia, which is very unstable, and likes to throw it's weight around, not a strategically sensible choice.
Or oil, the price of which is totally unstable, is in very short supply and has already been the cause of several wars ... one of which Britain is a particpant in
And don't get me started on the filthiness of coal, although it's plentiful fuel source, so are the pollutants that its burning causes, acidic compounds (which cause acid rain (ask the Norwegian government which spends NOK100,000,000 each year liming its lakes and watercourses to keep its aquatic environment alive)) mercury, arsenic, and radioactive emissions far exceeding that of nuclear, enough air pollution to reduce atmospheric visibility if enough coal is being burned, that's before we get to the hundreds of thousands who have died in coal mining accidents over the years and the many more who have died from coal-dust exposure.
All fossil fuels contribute significantly to the emissions of greenhouse gas, directly.

So what else is there if not Nuclear Power? How else is Britain going to produce an abundance of baseline load electricity, while keeping to it's Kyoto and climate change commitments? Remember Ireland has no nuclear power but our Kyoto strategy is to buy carbon credits from Germany ...

Renewables, due to their high cost, limited geographical viability and dependence on the weather, can never be more than a niche product.

It's all well and fine to say "Tony Blair is this and Tony Blair is that," but the real question is what would YOU do if YOU were in his shoes? I for one, can not see how the British PM could have done anything else in good consciense.

BTW if you're going to boycott British companies, then to be fair, you're also going to have to boycott anything sold by/made in the USA, Canada, France, Finland, Germany, China, India, Japan, The Netherlands, the Ukraine, Russia, and those are just the places I can of off-hand.

Oh and, if we ever suffer a gas shock, you'll have to boycott the ESB as well because they'll be importing Nuclear Electrcity from Britain and France.

You're gonna be a rich man because if you boycott anyone whose country uses nuclear power you're not going to have much to spend money on ... except maybe your share of Ireland's Kyoto fines ...

Well said!!!

Muggy Dev

I agree with Fly Agaric it is hiliarious although it does bely a political gob****ery that is unfortunatly all to common in this country today.

It was only last year that Russia decided that she no longer liked the cut of Ukraine's gib and turned off the gas at the mains.She relented in the end but sovereign countries everywhere(well at least the smart ones) realised that in a climate of dwindling resourses,rockerting prices and uncertain geo-politics,there was only one party in town,self sufficiency.The guest of honour at this party is of course,nuclear.

In a perfect world our politicions would have already read the writing on the wall and announced a major wind farm project offshore the lenght of the western seaboard along with the commissioning of three nuclear power stations(phased in) thereby ensuring Ireland's complete independence for domestic energy from 2017 to 2070.

But since we cannot even agree to burn our rubbish unlike our continental neighbours who have been doing so for years,and since there are still objections being lodged to the erection of windmills....I fear the worst.
Rest assured,Britain,France,Germany,Finland,Sweden and all the rest will not get caught short here.

mike65

The joke is that Dermo Aherne is suggesting legal action against the UK gov if they proceed. I presume he'll be told there are no grounds for taking UK to court as if this state did they'd have to take similiar action against every other nuclear state.

Mike.

Muggy Dev

I would suggest that Mr Aherne's time might be more usefully spent explaining to the thousands of less well off in our society why their gas bills are going to be 35% dearer this winter.

democrates

Lol, I like issuing grand international edicts from my 3-bed semi, glad you all enjoyed it. My measures will have little impact as I've a small eco-footprint anyway.

I disagree that nuclear is necessary, the fact that many governments are pursuing it doesn't amount to an argument in its favour for me.

There are a lots of measures we can take to reduce energy consumption. Teleworking is a key area to reduce unneccessary journeys, and better public transport. Compost waste rather than trucking to landfill. Natural foods rather than packaged factory-processed food (home-grown even better, use the compost). Turn off appliances rather than leaving them on standby. LCD's instead of crts. CFL's and LED's instead of tungsten or flourescent lights, and so on.

On the supply side renewables have come nowhere close to their potential. The vagaries of weather vs demand are not an insurmountable problem because a variety of storage solutions are feasable, so wind, wave, solar, geothermal or what not are all good options and will become more so if given a fair chance.

Economic viability is a relative measure, comparing disadvantaged fledgling renewables against entrenched oil and gas or semi-costed subsidised nuclear at todays prices is unfair, you've got to account for the entire life-cycles and include subsidies and risk guarantees which have an equivalent insurance value.

Oil and gas are on a permanent upward trend, end of. I'll assume people agree on that.

The existing uk nuclear clean-up bill stands at stg£72Bn, that excludes military waste which brings it to stg£100Bn. That figure has repeatedly been revised upward, so we still don't know the final figure which taxpayers must foot, that's some subsidy folks, a perfect example of socialising the risk and privatising the profit as Noam Chomsky observes.

As for the great Finnish experiment:

"Evidence from abroad shows nuclear power is not competitive. Last year the US government was forced to offer nuclear subsidies of £13.7bn to persuade investors. "The new nuclear power plant being built in Finland needed hidden subsidies through export guarantees from France, 30-year-long contracts and government guarantees over future decommissioning and waste.

Now the UK Govt. state that theirs will be funded by industry at no cost to the taxpayer.

"It would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long term waste management costs."

Will they require the industry to contribute to a fund sufficient for the aftermath using independant actuarial estimates based on the prudence principle, or are they just hoping they'll still be around and making sufficient profit to reprocess, vitrify waste and store it securely for a few hundred years? Maybe there's a big dome sitting idle somewhere.

The fact that they refer to 'their full share of long term waste management costs' suggests a bill for future generations, and we may yet learn of other hidden subsidies. The side-effect of subsidised nuclear and the unsustainable carbon industry is that it has created an artificially low energy price, creating economies built on sand, stifling the development of the renewables industry, and allowing unrealistic comparisons to be bandied about to argue that renewables aren't economic.

If I was Tony Blair I'd do exactly the same thing, because I'd be Tony Blair. But if it was me in his position I'd rule out nuclear and go hammer and tongs for reduced consumption, greater efficiency, renewables, and also crucially, greater self-reliance as opposed to having the nation over the barrel of ever-intensifying competition.

SeanW

Normally I don't think too much of Blair but he's redeemed himself hugely in my eyes over the last few days. We have no conscienable alternative but to embrace nuclear power, and fast. Here's why:

Every other form of power generation has downfalls that are infinitely worse than Nuclear Power. Look at the Eirgrid Portal for an accurate estimate of Ireland's power usage on a quarter hourly basis. See some patterns? Energy demand peaks out in the 3.5GigaWatts to 4GigaWatts (GW) range, but wind output is extremely variable, and almost always drops off to almost nothing during the night. It can never be more than a niche product. Even if the government gave away billions to the Wind sector, we'd still need someting else.

Democrates: let's be really generous and say that we could knock 500MW-1GW constant off our electricity needs, and that it were possible, through large investments in turbines and international interconnection, to generate 1GW constant from wind farms (both of these are hugely optimistic) that still leaves us with well in excess of 2GW of power that has to come from a reliable, baseline load provider.

Since you're ruled out oil and gas (although we're using a lot of gas here, much to our peril). Peat is also environmentally unconscionable, as it's use destroys pristine boglands, a mistake the Dutch people know all to well. They destroyed most of their boglands and what remains is expensive to maintain and extremely fragile. Seeing us in Ireland make the same mistakes, the Dutch stepped in and bought a section of Irish peat bog. Source. That leaves us with just one major choice.

Coal.

The reasons why NOT to let that happen make even the worst Greenpeace type of anti-nuclear FUD pale by comparison. Just from a small amount of research, I could write a book about why getting to strategically rely on coal is fundamentally insane thing to do.

Tony Blair no doubt has done his research and looked at all these issues very closely. He knows that a rejuvanation of his country's nuclear sector is the right thing to do. And he has the courage to stand up for what he knows to be right. I admire him for that, even though I don't agree with everything he's done to date. Noone who is pro nuclear says that it has to be an either or of nuclear, renewables or increased efficiency. It has to be all three, each an indispensible part of a greater vision.

If you're totally anti-nuclear and can't see the inherent sense in it, fair enough, good luck with your protest. But I think you need to take a fresh look at this.

flogen

fly_agaric wrote:

LOL. Funniest thing I've read all day!

Are you going to boycott electricity from the national grid when we interconnect with the UK mainland?:)

When is this happening; I was reading about the unification of the North/South electricity market next year but that's it.

mike65

Did someone say mainland!??????

http://www.eastwestinterconnector.ie/

Mike.

dermot_sheehan

It's Blair taking a hard, unpopular but necessary decision.

Currently the economics for wind don't stand up. Yes we should have as much wind as possible but the output per turbine is so small and it varies depending on the wind speed.

Oil is running out, gas would leave us dependent on the Russians throwing a tantrum like they did earlier this year and the gas will run out eventually.

The only other non-nuclear option is coal, and here's the thing, a properly functioning nuclear station would emit less raditiation into the environment then a coal station!!! Why? because in the tonnes and tonnes of coal that would needed to be burnt are miniscule amounts of radioactive materials (radium, uranium, thorium etc) that would be emited into the environment as particulates, ready to be breathed in and cause lung cancer.

Nuclear seems the only sensible choice, yes there's the problem of waste, the Finn's have adopted deep geological storage which seems sensible. The deep geology of the earth kept the raditation from that natural nuclear reactor in the Gabon safe for millions of years, it can keep man amde nuclear waste.

Muggy Dev

"we can import a few Giga Watts of nuclear power from Britain"


1) Assuming they'll have it to spare in the first instance.

2) Expect to pay top dollar.Other countries will be competing fiercely for those giga watts.

If the future raw energy policy of this country is to be rooted in the importation of the excess production of our neighbours than God help us.

fly_agaric

Democrates wrote:

Lol, I like issuing grand international edicts from my 3-bed semi, glad you all enjoyed it.

Yes - it was quite good! Very dramatic.:)

Democrates wrote:

I disagree that nuclear is necessary

Would that be for us or for the UK?

I don't know. Maybe we can get away without it by tapping our massive renewables potential + interconnecting with the UK but what of the UK itself?

I just heard someone from the Greens on Newsnight tonight giving out about (among other things) how nuclear will tie the UK into a centralised power generation system that will not suit the development of local renewable sources.

However, they seem to be forgetting that most of the UK's best wind/wave energy potential is right at the opposite end of the country from where all the people live (i.e. in Scotland, its northern Islands and on NI's west coast) so will they not need the national grid to distribute that anyway?

Democrates wrote:

a variety of storage solutions are feasable

Would that be on a local scale or for big wind farms, hydro projects etc?

Democrates wrote:

Economic viability is a relative measure, comparing disadvantaged fledgling renewables against entrenched oil and gas or semi-costed subsidised nuclear at todays prices is unfair, you've got to account for the entire life-cycles and include subsidies and risk guarantees which have an equivalent insurance value.

Are the UK not giving renewables plenty of subsidies + aid? If they aren't they should be!

Why does it have to be either renewables or nuclear?

If the nuclear makes up about 20% or so now there is still alot of the energy needs currently met by fossil fuels for renewables (local scale and big projects) and improved efficiency to handle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/electricity_calc/html/1.stm

Dumping nuclear completely is taking a very large and dangerous gamble on renewables IMO.

Democrates wrote:

Now the UK Govt. state that theirs will be funded by industry at no cost to the taxpayer

I don't believe that, but talking about how the miraculous private sector will provide for all seems to have become a political staple now.

Democrates wrote:

When is this happening; I was reading about the unification of the North/South electricity market next year but that's it.

I don't know when - but it seems to be being discussed and a company want to build it.

mike65 wrote:

Did someone say mainland!??????

Its funny. The dodgy political significance of that term passed over my head there.
Since the North is part of the UK - the rest of it, which is much bigger, is the "mainland" IMO.;)

I was trying to discriminate between interconnection with the North and interconnection with Britain.

fly_agaric

Democrates wrote:

LCD's instead of crts. CFL's and LED's instead of tungsten or flourescent lights, and so on.

I wonder how much energy these things save if the energy required to produce them is factored in?

Anyone have an idea?

It may not look it, but a high-brightness LED is a hell of alot more sophisticated than an incandescent bulb.

Also,just to nitpick, CFL's are actually "compact fluorescent lamps" (same principles as the big things used in offices).

democrates

Sharp points all, I have given it a fresh look.

In my defense there is some inexcusable FUD around nuclear (wait 'til you see that!). We could do with less of that sort of thing, it's just scaremongering, it's alarmist, no-one with a good argument resorts to warning about anything or expressing doubt, in fact given their uncertainty about safety the only logical conclusion is that there is no risk, no human could ever be capable of perpetrating such an extreme act again.

Besides, anyone who knows anything about geopolitics knows that western corporations and militaries and trade negotiators are so selfless and kindly abroad that Muslims are getting more moderate and friendly by the day, I heard that many are so impressed they're converting en masse to The Christ (I think they call him Jihad), so anyway we can all rest easy on that one. And sure that video could be doctored to make it look risky. Where were the lifegaurds with red yokes for instance?

The argument for nuclear now seems quite powerful. Each nation must have cheap electricity at all costs, be self-sufficient and protect themselves from exposure to the international energy market in order to be competitive in international markets. Need I say more!

If I may. In order to secure that primary input we must take the benefits now and leave the clean-up and storage costs to our grandchildren, great grandchildren etc etc. Don't mind the bleeding hearts, the nay-sayers with no plans for a better tomorrow, someone will invent a new bacteria that eats uranium, farts oxygen, sweats ballygowan, and sh1tes pots o' gold, but that's for people in the year 2500 to figure out if they're as good as they claim to be. We have to focus on economic growth here and now, because, if we don't, someone else will. So get consumin' there.

Nuclear has been out of favour with our uneducated masses (who obviously don't understand something if they oppose it) ever since Long Mile eh, Chernobyl. As a result no EU Government has built a new reactor for over a decade, that's nearly ten years, daylight saving. But what people clearly fail to realise is, that was rusty ruskie old tech, now we have shiny happy new tech.

Bush as usual has been the clever one and supported the free market all along (which just needs the government to back the hell off in order to thrive) by transferring billions in subsidies from taxpayers to investors in order to get the competitive edge of cheap energy. Genius. You can see why USA is No.1. Frontier country, first they conquered the moon, invented potatoes and tobacco, J Edgar built a hoover that sucked, and then on earth Edison discovered the bulb.

I've gained new respect for the Bush, he's decider, and rich people always want what's best for everyone. Other nations with also wise leaders making decisions in good con-science have emulated his extremely eloquent exemplary examples, but oh no, not those Eurocrats in Brussels.

Now less FDI comes to the EU tree-huggers and scaredy cats, instead it runs where it earns higher returns, where the input costs are lowest for industry, where the people are willing to do whatever it takes to get the cheap electricity to attract investors, some are even working for a pittance, clever clog nips caught us out there, didn't see that coming but now I see the way forward, I see the light.

We thought we were doing great but really we've been slacking off! Everything investors need to survive must become cheaper. Cheap electricity. We need to work cheaper, harder, longer, smarter! Like everyone else in the world. Rejoice in the wonders of competition. De-regulate and privatise anything that moves, let the invisible hand of the market work its magic. Increase taxpayer subsidies to attract investment. Bigger tax breaks for the rich. Save the climate with nuclear. Welch on Aid promises which were obviously never meant to be honoured in the event that we became the second richest country in the world, children starving to death need to cop on to themselves and understand that. All EU citizens must make any and every sacrifice to get back in the game and reverse the economic stagnation, because everyone knows we must be competitive and strive for more economic growth, but don't take my word on all that, ask Mary Ellon Synon.

Finland is the perfect example to get us back on the nuclear track, the wind refuseth to blow in winter (like a French strike-monkey) so the poor divils would freeze to death in their igloos if they had to depend on windmills that weren't all atwirl, also the Ruskies are going to potski so they're too risky, and ere o' God Ted we all know coal is shoddy shoddy fuel, don't start me on that I could write volumes, so it has to be nuclear because they can't buy electricity from a stable supplier, like other EU countries who all have to focus on themselves and not be selling their electricity to Finland just because they need it, that's the last thing the european grid is being designed for but try telling that to people.

Poor Tony in Downer Street has the nuclear lobby chewing one ear, the military the other, and international investors the other, accusing him of not getting his people to compete for investment hard enough. Verily, they could make a lot more investing in Chiny-wares, the profits they make in the commonwealth are really charity out of the goodeness of their busoms.

Since Tony faces no election and feels the hand of history on his shoulder he has done the brave thing and given the rich what they need to survive. We need to do the same and go nuclear to catch up with France the UK and Germany. We must go forwards, not backwards, upwards, not forwards. For cryin' out loud, get with the program, going forward, reality check, HELLO! Now sing it with me "we worked night and day by the big cooling tower, they had their health but we had the power!"

Hobbes

democrates wrote:

In response to the UK decision to pursue the building of further nuclear power stations I am boycotting all UK businesses selling into Ireland with the exception of those dedicated to ecological responsibility and fair-trade.

This applies to business as well as personal expenditure.

Will this include the english language?

banaman

SeanW wrote:

Man
Renewables, due to their high cost, limited geographical viability and dependence on the weather, can never be more than a niche product.

Sorry mate you're going to have to prove this statement.
From reading i've done nuclear is AT BEST a temporary fix. Uranium deposits worldwide are finite and if ALL power generation was to become nuclear reserves would last LESS than 9 yrs.
Also power generation only contributes about 1/3 of CO2 emissions.
What needs to change is our lifestyles. We need to be more energy efficient in ALL aspects including transport, consumerism, building, heating etc.
Money spent on the DEAD-END technology that is nuclear power cannot be spent on local sustainable eco-friendly power generation. For example bio-mass generators with carbon-sink technology could provide a local cash crop for the farming industry and meet local power needs. Granted heavier industries require higher voltages but larger plants would provide these needs.
Also the current bill to the UK taxpayer is variously estimated to be in excess of £100 billion to decomission and store the waste from today's stations, do you really believe that the bill will be less in 50 year's time when the proposed stations are due for decommissioning. Blair says new nuclear stations must be built by the private sector but the private sector told Thatcher that unless the taxpayer payed for decommissioning they were NOT interested in nuclear power. Hence nuclear stations were not privatised. Given the history of mutli-national big business shirking its responsibilities when it comes to cleaning up its pollution what gaurantees are there that the operating companies will adhere to their committments? Think pensions, Bhopal, asbestos, toxic sites around the globe and illegal dumping.
At best nuclear power is a temporary fix. However it leaves such a legacy for the future that its is unacceptable.
I doubt if Blair and the British establishment will listen but i supprt the protest at this decision that will rank alongside his illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as monumental folly.
Read the following for background info,
http://www.arena.org.au/ARCHIVES/Mag%20Archive/Issue%2082/editorial_82.htm
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/questions/nuclear_energy.html
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/nuclear_power_answer_climate_change.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-04.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-34.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-34.htm
I could add lots more but if you're interested you'll find them yourself

Moriarty

banaman wrote:

Sorry mate you're going to have to prove this statement.
From reading i've done nuclear is AT BEST a temporary fix. Uranium deposits worldwide are finite and if ALL power generation was to become nuclear reserves would last LESS than 9 yrs.

Not true. There's enough proven uranium depoists around the world to fuel most of the worlds energy requirements for anywhere between 10,000 and a couple of billion years if and when more effecient nuclear fission reactors are used. [source]

banaman

democrates wrote:

Bush as usual has been the clever one and supported the free market all along (which just needs the government to back the hell off in order to thrive) by transferring billions in subsidies from taxpayers to investors in order to get the competitive edge of cheap energy. Genius. You can see why USA is No.1. Frontier country, first they conquered the moon, invented potatoes and tobacco, J Edgar built a hoover that sucked, and then on earth Edison discovered the bulb.

I've gained new respect for the Bush, he's decider, and rich people always want what's best for everyone. Other nations with also wise leaders making decisions in good con-science have emulated his extremely eloquent exemplary examples, but oh no, not those Eurocrats in Brussels.
"

Love your sarcasm but doubt your grip on reality.
"rich people want what's best for everyone" ??? You really need to reread your history. Why throw out the English landlords, why set up Social welfare,why the Combat Poverty Agency etc? Rich people want to be rich and to get richer they don't give a **** about anybody else. As for Bush's US and his decisions read Rogue State by William Blum and What We've Lost by Graydon Carter to see how much the US rich care for their fellow citizens never mind the rest of us.
US industry and their "good Science" decisions this is the home of Monsanto
( DDT banned in the US so what do they do? They export it everywhere else) Union Carbide of Bhopal fame, Enron, Ford motor co and the Pinto etc etc. Invented potatoes and tobacco I think you'll find that they were invented by either God or evolution depending on your beliefs. US cheap energy is based on lack of environmental regulations, massive tax breaks, deregulation which led to power cuts in California and unchecked pollution.
I agree that Brussels is not any better and less accountable than US Congress (hard as that may be to believe) but to hold the US up as a shining example of anything except greed, selfishness and exploitation is misguided in my opinion.

banaman

Moriarty wrote:

Not true. There's enough proven uranium depoists around the world to fuel most of the worlds energy requirements for anywhere between 10,000 and a couple of billion years if and when more effecient nuclear fission reactors are used. [source]

According to the sources I've read Uranium is an abundant element BUT the deposits have to be above a certain level of purity in order to be viable to extract/purify the uranium. At present around half the energy contained in the uranuium is used to extract and purify it.
Uranium in rocks such as granite and in seawater is just too low ppm to recover.
Wikipedia is not neccesarily a reliable source since there is no vetting of who posts the info. Thus what you are reading may be biased.
I realise the sources I refer to also have biases but I know who they are and can check their credentials if I wish to do so.
I dont have the article that discussed ore purity, resources and thorium cycle to hand, as it is stored on my laptop. I will find it and post it over the next couple of days.

dermot_sheehan

banaman wrote:

According to the sources I've read Uranium is an abundant element BUT the deposits have to be above a certain level of purity in order to be viable to extract/purify the uranium. At present around half the energy contained in the uranuium is used to extract and purify it.
Uranium in rocks such as granite and in seawater is just too low ppm to recover.
Wikipedia is not neccesarily a reliable source since there is no vetting of who posts the info. Thus what you are reading may be biased.
I realise the sources I refer to also have biases but I know who they are and can check their credentials if I wish to do so.
I dont have the article that discussed ore purity, resources and thorium cycle to hand, as it is stored on my laptop. I will find it and post it over the next couple of days.

If there was an economic incentive to search for deposits, more deposits would be found. Also if breeder reactors were employed plutonium could be bred from relatively abuntant uranium 238, which then could be used in reactors.

With regard to only 1/3 of CO2 coming from power generation. If we have cheap abuntant power generated, we could run transport on it, either directly as electrict vehicles, or by using electricity to electrosise water and produce hydrogen to run cars on.

Moriarty

banaman wrote:

According to the sources I've read Uranium is an abundant element BUT the deposits have to be above a certain level of purity in order to be viable to extract/purify the uranium. At present around half the energy contained in the uranuium is used to extract and purify it.
Uranium in rocks such as granite and in seawater is just too low ppm to recover.
Wikipedia is not neccesarily a reliable source since there is no vetting of who posts the info. Thus what you are reading may be biased.
I realise the sources I refer to also have biases but I know who they are and can check their credentials if I wish to do so.
I dont have the article that discussed ore purity, resources and thorium cycle to hand, as it is stored on my laptop. I will find it and post it over the next couple of days.

That part of the wikipedia entry is further referenced to this piece, written by a fairly reputable person by all accounts.

Red Alert

We have a de-facto Tesco boycott in our house, preferring Superquinn and Dunnes because they're Irish.

democrates

Red Alert wrote:

We have a de-facto Tesco boycott in our house, preferring Superquinn and Dunnes because they're Irish.

In the UK small towns where local businesses have been wiped out refer to The Tesco Chainstore Massacre.

ronbyrne2005

Red Alert wrote:

We have a de-facto Tesco boycott in our house, preferring Superquinn and Dunnes because they're Irish.

so superquinn and tesco only stock irish goods now?? you could buy irish goods in tesco if you were that concerned.

ronbyrne2005

democrates wrote:

In the UK small towns where local businesses have been wiped out refer to The Tesco Chainstore Massacre.

would YOU deny consumers the right to choose?what about poor people who can buy more in tesco?

Red Alert

i choose not to buy british goods from a british retailer, when i can buy british goods from an irish one.