http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071202120153AAdsh5W
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx
Whatever the merit of these groups' goals, these arguments are based on a false premise. Long-term uranium supplies are simply not a real problem. Even if (in the distant future) uranium ore does get really expensive, market forces, and nuclear technology, are equipped to handle it.
They dont worry as the scale of a nuclear plant going terriblly wrong is quite massive and we know we make the worlds most powerful weapons from it.
Like I said before,
Having a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb factory are two very different things, don't get confused between the two.
It is not neccasirly ignorance as nuclear is dangerous by its very nature. we are trying to comtrol that reaction and if we fail it gets very messy very quickly. Anything we do we mess up eventually.
Do you believe anything that has bad consequences if a human operator messes up is bad? Do you drive a car?
85 years worth here
currently known resources, at current prices, with current technology... increase price and you increase the viability of massive resources, indeed the estimate is a doubling in price would lead to ten times the amount of viable uranium resources, a doubling in price of the raw fuel is an insignificant rise in the final price of produced electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
So, once again, the sky isn't falling!
Do you believe anything that has bad consequences if a human operator messes up is bad? Do you drive a car?
I can think of nothing else that has the potential to be as catastrophic as a nuclear power station.
Zulu-Eleven +1
How about a space station crashing into earth? I think that could be worse actually.
Ok, so if we remove all nuclear power stations just because it has the worst consequences. So then what would have the worst consequences? Do we get rid of that too?
What are the possible consequences of you going outside? Could get hit by lightning, or by a car or a bus. Could get mugged, shot, raped, stabbed. Could get bitten by a rabid animal. Yet you don't really consider those things when you walk out the door.
I can think of nothing else that has the potential to be as catastrophic as a nuclear power station.
See, this proves categorically your complete inability to assess risk!
You've clearly never heard of bacteria and viruses then! Roughly one million people every year die from malaria, and we've done very little to combat it!
The 1918 flu pandemic killed upwards of fifty million people!
Plague killed about fifty percent of the [b]entire[/b] European population
One single random mutation in the genetic formulation of the common cold has the potential to kill 6 billion people - and we can do nothing about it, the potential catastrophe of one single mutation would be far more catastrophic than all nuclear power stations going up at once.
Yes there are things outwith our control.....but isn't the choice of what we use to generate our power from entirely within our control ?
The place we live is entirely within our control too - but millions of people [b]choose[/b] to live close to the sea despite the potential risk of tsunami's killing them - the tsunami in 2006 killed about half a million, it was entirely avoidable, since they could have lived further inshore! Every death in Japan was avoidable, there was no need to live near the sea in an earthquake zone - these things were [b]not[/b] outwith their control.
Oh my oh my, quick, relocate the populations, run for the hills, the sky is falling!
Come on guys - post more, The bivvy thread is still 400 posts ahead
[img] 
[/img]
The place we live is entirely within our control too - but millions of people choose to live close to the sea
Did they..?
I disagree with your cold example as well, its nearly completely out of our control, so it can't be compared.
With nuclear power, I believe the rewards are worth the risk. But perhaps this is a personal thing. Really it lies down to the man in charge, whether or not he believes the rewards are worth the risks. I guess that's why we get to vote..
[img] 
[/img]
Aha, the Elfin defence - trash the thread with pictures and close down debate when you've been proved to be talking out of your sphincter.
Is that just another form of flounce TJ?
Realman - how is where you live out of your control? if I offered you this exciting new villa, part of a new housing development in my newly built holiday resort of New Pompeii, would you have just a slight trepidation about the risk of pyroclastic flow entering your bedroom?
The fact that governments in the pacific rim have gone to the extent of creating a tsunami warning system, and hold tsunami drills, shows that the chance of it happening is entirely feasible, yet people choose to live there for a whole variety of reasons - but its fantasy to say that the risk is entirely out of their control!
TJ is hardly alone on this forum in being opinionated and not changing his mind - Socialist are we molgrips?- yet he seems to get the most grief for it from people
He's by far the most intractable person on here AND he throws in nasty insults all over the place right from the start, which is really out of order and pisses people off.
I can think of nothing else that has the potential to be as catastrophic as a nuclear power station
Lol! The biggest potential catastrophe facing the earth is the one caused by fossil fuels!
Re question 7 - energy savings are essential, however, that requires persuading 65m people in the UK alone to do the right thing. You've seen how people react when I've talked about fuel efficient cars (not specifically Prius) - they bring out the China defence i.e. why should I save a bit of fuel when China is 100 times worse? etc etc etc. People just don't care.
Nuclear power is probably the easiest carbon saving technology to roll out. You can make a few phone calls, maybe get some subsidy money out (maybe not) and viola, carbon emissions cut.
Just to make it clear, I personally favour a diverse mix of renewables and huge energy savings - I just don't know how on earth we'd make it work. Nuclear would be easy to make work imo.
Like I keep saying, the bottom line is always education - in this case education about saving energy and I don't just mean a few BBC news items and a sliding VED scale.
I offered you this exciting new villa, part of a new housing development in my newly built holiday resort of New Pompeii, would you have just a slight trepidation about the risk of pyroclastic flow entering your bedroom?
Evidence from California suggests that people are easily capable of putting that out of their minds. That TV programme ages ago about geology where the guy interviewed people living in a housing development under a big unstable mountainside covered in cracks and evidence of previous landslides, in a massive active earthquake zones. People bringing up their kids there and all 😯
Like I said before,Having a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb factory are two very different things, don't get confused between the two.
I was explaining aview not articulating my own. However the fact we dont build them near the big centre of use suggest othere think it is a risk.
Are you asking me if humans are infallible or are you asking me if messing up with a clothes peg is as bad as crashing a car? Do you really need an answer?Do you believe anything that has bad consequences if a human operator messes up is bad? Do you drive a car?
ps if i thas bad consequences it probably is bad 😉 I know what you mean though.
What are the possible consequences of you going outside? Could get hit by lightning, or by a car or a bus. Could get mugged, shot, raped, stabbed. Could get bitten by a rabid animal. Yet you don't really consider those things when you walk out the door.
Nothing is risk free , that is a given, but the fact other things have risks is irrelevant - unless you are weighing up interealted risks like say global warming v energy shortage v storage risks.
The place we live is entirely within our control too
oh yes global freemarket of movement without border controls is a worldwide reality unaffected by the availability of resources in any geographical area.
Exactly Molgrips - and I'd be willing to bet that the same bloke, living in a house under a mountainside which is inevitably going to collapse at some point - spends all his time worrying about the infinitesimally small chance he has of being killed by a nuclear reactor accident or muslamic terrorists.
He's by far the most intractable person on here AND he throws in nasty insults all over the place right from the start, which is really out of order and pisses people off.
Molgrips - really - I think you will find on this thread I have been sinned against more than sinned - and you are one of the big perpetrators
find a nasty insult I have dished out?
I've seen signs of all the contributors to this thread except Z-11 learning from others including Zokes who seems more open minded on the effects of low level radiation now.
In my case I've learned that 3W bulbs are considered too expensive by some and there is little enthusiasm among thread contributors for investing in energy saving/producing measures with a financial returns of five to twenty years. That contrasts with my real-life French and German friends.
On energy saving attitudes can be changed and do change. Look at the difference in attitudes towards smoking over the last 25 years. People used to smoke on hospital wards FFS.
attitudes can be changed and do change. Look at the difference in attitudes towards smoking over the last 25 years. People used to smoke on hospital wards FFS.
Yes TJ - I mean, twenty odd years ago nobody would even [b]dream[/b] of wearing a cycle helmet...
find a nasty insult I have dished out?
Oh this old chestnut.
Being insulting is not limited to the use of an epithet. I've tried explaining this to you before*
* this is an insulting comment btw.
Edukator - your real life French and German friends are proably intending to stay in the same house for 25 years, aren't they? Plus I think they get better feed-in tariffs etc don't they? They certainly did until recently since we had no FIT at all.
For me it's not a case of not wanting to invest in solar/pv, I simply don't have the spare cash right now. It's in the queue of things in my life that need £10k spending on them.
On energy saving attitudes can be changed and do change. Look at the difference in attitudes towards smoking over the last 25 years. People used to smoke on hospital wards FFS
Absolutely. But this will be a lot more difficult. People and their loved ones were dying in the most heartbreakingly slow and painful ways right in front of people's eyes, and it still took generations to make a change. This will be way harder.
So please tell me where I have been insulting? I might need to apologise.
he throws in nasty insults all over the place right from the start,
Please show this or is it hyperbole ?
molgrips even if he was [ lets be honest we all have at some point and i have no idea re this thread ] two wrongs dont make a right.
I've tried explaining this to you before
well has he? Seems factual tbh and you are being senistive he did not say or even hint at the reason being your gross stupidty did he 😉
Joke please take in the spirit it was inteneded no offence etc.
Ahh, helmets. What"s your view then Z-11 and whom do you believe? I believe:
1/ The Bath university study that found drrivers tooks less care around helmetted cyclists potentially resulting in more injured cyclists.
2/ The doctor that wrote the article in the Irish Medical Times who said that the reduction in cycling due to enforced helmet wearing (as demonstrated in Australia) would lead to an increase in the death rate due to heart disease. This more than outweiged any potential benefits from helmet wearing
3/ That a cycle helmet can only absorb a very small amount of energy in falls when it is not displaced. It may help but only in a small number of low speed, low energy accidents.
I wear a helmet most of the time but sometimes enjoy wind in my hair rides. The increased risk is on a similar level to driving a soft top car.
And you Z-11? Just out of idle interest.
molgrips - Member"and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices"
Don't call me prejudiced you arrogant fkwit!
Now that is an insult
The increased risk is on a similar level to driving a soft top car.
So, Edukator - significanly higher by several orders of magnitude than the actual proven risk posed to anybody in the entire western world from all the nuclear disasters, leaks and atmospheric atom bomb tests that have taken place globally in the last seventy years... yet still TJ is passionately against nuclear power, but not convinced by the need to wear a helmet... 😆
Now that is an insult
Yeah, but he's right though - you are an arrogant fkwit!
House values here reflect their energy performance Molgrips. You have to get a house energy assessed befora you can sell it. The category the house is in must appear in adverts. If you sell you can be pretty much certain to recoup much of what you've invested. People keep bills for everything and bring them out when negociating price. It's like buying a second-hand car when the seller brings out the bills of a new engine and suspension parts.
The French a German housing markets are very different to the British one. With the exception of a few cities such as Paris, Grenoble and Munich price reflects supply and demand. Supply can be increased to meet demand as land is available. The green belt policy and the buying up of land by a cartel of house builders has resulted in severe distortions of the British market and a boom-bust cycle.
If you take the number of bicycle deaths in Europe and then consider the small number of deaths or serious injury that would have been prevented by wearing a helmet you end up with a very small number per year. I'll be generous a give you a 100. Now take the numbers for Tchernobyl which most of the posters on the thread seem happy with, of the order of thousands to tens of thousands. It strikes me that just one nuclear accident has resulted in more death and suffering than the lack of helmets on cyclists heads over the last thirty years and will do for a good many more.
Can you back up your claim that most posters on this thread are happy with the claim of thousands killed by Chernobyl?
The IAEA and WHO say its bullshit!
I think there is a LOT of conjecture on the death toll.
IAEA has a vested interest in the industry so there may be bias in their figures. And IIRC the WHO cannot publish any stats on Nukes etc without sign off from IAEA so I would expect the WHO's stats to tie in with IAEA(I could be wrong though).
From what I've read a total of 1000+ deaths from Chernobyl is at the more conservative end of the spectrum.
You have to get a house energy assessed befora you can sell it. The category the house is in must appear in adverts.
Same here, it's an EU thing.
I dunno if someone would pay 10k extra for a house with PV or not - maybe. There are so few people who've done it, presumably because of the lack of FIT and uncertainty as to whether or not they'll get their money back at sale.
It's like buying a second-hand car when the seller brings out the bills of a new engine and suspension parts
It's widely recognised that you don't get your money back in this situation. Nor do you get your money back if you install a new bathroom etc.
Remember most houses are cripplingly expensive here so that limits the spare cash people have to invest.
The problem is that If 50,000 people a year were dying of cancer ar the time of chenobyl and 52000 died last year were the extra cancer deaths caused by radiation or is the rise down to better diagnostics and intensive monitoring of those who were exposed?
There is no statistical proof that the death rate from cancer has gone up - though of course everyone with any form cancer 1000miles from the plant will blame the accident!
Read the thread again Z-11, you appear to have missed quite a lot.
There is no statistical proof
Correct, there are only probabilities.
Edukator - I've missed nothing, there is no evidence at all of increased death rates, only TJ's unreferenced assertion that over 10k people have died as a result.
J_me - and so far, the probability that someone (outside of a small, identified group of people) will die from a cause which is in any way attributable to radiation exposure from Chernobyl is infinitesimally small, (and inside that group the risk is only fractionally higher!)
J_me - and so far, the probability that someone (outside of a small, identified group of people) will die from a cause which is in any way attributable to radiation exposure from Chernobyl is infinitesimally small
Eh ? I thought it was yourself that quoted the WHO report which estimated a total of up to 4000 deaths could eventually be attributed to the accident?
You don't have to look any further than Wikipedia to find 10 000 deaths. Look further and you sometimes find more but rarely less. Those that do quote less are those that you would expect to due to vested interests. Anyone with a minimum of independance talks in thousands.
J_me: Yes, read it again - that includes the likely deaths amongst the liquidators!
Edumakator:
don't have to look any further than Wikipedia to find 10 000 deaths
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahh, wikipedia? you're joking, right? you [b]are[/b] joking aren't you?
I'm not joking. The references in Wikipedia check out fine.
I'm not joking. The references in Wikipedia check out fine.
Seriously Educkator - you've really just taken this debate to a whole other level 😆
Whats next? - "a bloke down the pub told me"
250,000 is not [i]"a small, identified group of people"[/i]. But yes they account for the majority (2,200) of the estimated deaths.
There are still 1,800 deaths outside this group. Still a figure that confirms [i]"the claim thousands killed by Chernobyl"[/i].
For reasons given above these estimates are likely to be conservative.
Go on then Z-11, quote the person or organisation quoted by Wikipedia whose work you find so laughable.
oh i know this one it is this bunch of charlatans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipcc
So what's your problem with the Wiki entry Junkjard? Whatever you think of the IPCC the Wiki content is remarkarkably complete and includes criticisms.
Edukator - sorry mate, I've just got to ask again, just to check - [u]Wikipedia [/u]- you are joking right? 😆
I'm not your mate, Z-11. I will be do my best to avoid ever coming into contact with you. There aren't many forum posters I'd cross the road to avoid but you are one of them. Do you have any disticnitve signs so that when I ride Swinley I'll know when to sprint off?
Hahahaha - sorry, **** me, you were actually being serious, I didn't realise 😯
Wikipedia?
oh, my giddy aunt... oh my oh my... lordy lordy...
[b]wikipedia?[/b]
where to start... 😕
*best * thread * ever*
Back to Fukushima. Some France 3 journos have just driven as close as possible to the plant. Approaching the town they were already 25 times over "safe radioactive limits". They stopped when the buildings were just in view of the telephoto lense with the geiger counter beeping away merrily and dangerous level on the readout.
Maybe they got their "safe radioactive limits" from Wikipedia?
😆
How much longer are you going to cane this one Zulu-Eleven ?
You really are a childish muppet.
And you wonder why I can rarely be arsed to enter into a serious debate with you ?
Aah, diddums Ernie 🙂
Maybe if I used wiki as an authoritative factual reference more often, you'd feel more comfortable with the prospect of serious debate 😆
So what's your problem with the Wiki entry Junkjard?
None it was a reference to Z-11 and was a comment at him not you.Sorry for the confusion. I am not an climate sceptic.
I am sure you can understand why, a number of us choose not to respond to him. I have file blocker but cant even see his posts but you can still tell he is up to his usual style/tricks starts of reasonable, uses some science then just ends up at some sort of mocking ad hominem attack. iirc he calls it scribbling across a thread/forum.
An aecdote: When the Tchernobyl cloud dumped a lot of rain over Wales we thought it might be a good idea to make sure the water we were distributing was safe to drink. We weren't in theory responsible for radioactivity in the water but felt a responsibility to protect consumers.
Debate in the office, phone calls were made but we found we were on our own; the radiological protection board being completely and utterly useless, providing no infromation whatsoever in the early stages. We didn't have a geiger counter but after a few minutes realised they'd probably have one in the local school or university physics department. More phone calls were made and a few hours later we had enough information to decide what to do.
If you want information o radioactivity levels you'd do better to ask Greenpeace or the local schoool than the radiological protection board (or whatever it's called now)..
**** me, are you [b]still[/b] smarting over the name thing [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cuts-union-knee-jerk-response-or-last-line-of-defence-against-the-torries/page/5#post-1807611 ]Junky[/url]?
TJ - if you're accusing others of not answering your questions, maybe you'd care to point out somewhere in this thread where you've answered questions posed to you. You could start by showing me where you answered my last question to you - I presume you must have.
Junkyard - Member
None it was a reference to Z-11 and was a comment at him not you.Sorry for the confusion. I am not an climate sceptic.
I am sure you can understand why, a number of us choose not to respond to him
The best policy. Sometimne I feel it nessasary to correct the most stupid factual innacuracies he comes out with such as less than 100 deaths from Chernobyl when even the pessimistec report from the WHO that he quotes with very narrowly drawn paramenters givce 4000 and other reputable cources give 25 000 or so.
However it is totally pointless getting into any sort of debate with him.
TJ - quite simple, one word answer - bullshit!
Regardless, your claim is that, and I quote
10 000 died because of Chernobyl and many more peoples health was affected
ten thousand died - not might die, not potentially could die - you specifically claimed that 10,000 [b]died[/b] Which is quite simply [b]not true[/b]
it is totally pointless getting into any sort of debate with him
you cant really debate with him he just gives the facade of one [though his reasoning is not great]then he just insults you. He must be doing it by now surely
Oh indeed he is junkyard. Rather comical - because he does not agree with me I am a liar. Its laughably poor.
Aracer - what question? IIRC you did ask one or two things obvuiously intended as a rhehtorical trap that I ignored but if you have a real question I will try to answer
OIC - so it's OK to ignore rhetorical traps, but not strawmen? Not that it was one, was just trying to clarify exactly what point your strawman was trying to make.
so it's OK to ignore rhetorical traps
well it is generally considered foolish to not avoid a trap you have seen.
was just trying to clarify exactly what point your strawman was trying to make.
was it trying to misrepresent your position as that is what a straw man argument does 🙄 You could have asked a question you know.
Aracer - you have lost me. got a question for me I will try to answer it.
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts??? 😯
Aha, the Elfin defence - trash the thread with pictures and close down debate when you've been proved to be talking out of your sphincter.
Ah. How nice to be thought of. 😀 I'm very flattered, Labby.
Although I must correct you on one small point:
The [b][i]Elfinmanoeuvre[/i][/b] is employed when we've decided I am right, and there is no point in continuing a silly argument any more. Turn negative energy into something productive. Many people enjoy it actually.
This fascinating fact comes courtesy of Ernie, from whom I learned that small turtles live in Atocha station in Madrid. They're quite happy there.
[img] 
[/img]
Maybe we could have something similar here. Wombats at Waterloo, Muntacs in Marylebone, and, wait for it............
...(cos it's gonna be good).......
....BEARS IN PADDINGTON!!!!!!
😀
Good, innit? I think it'll be a winner.
(Scuttles off to discuss idea with Boris)
The question TJ was: would it be OK for us to have nuclear power if all countries in the world had it? Feel free to ignore it as a rhetorical trap, but if the answer is no, then your question about why other countries shouldn't have it is completely pointless. If the answer is yes, then that makes all your other arguments pointless (though it would at least enable me to provide a sensible answer to the other countries question, otherwise I have insufficient information). Actually I suppose it is a rhetorical trap - I can see why you don't want to answer.
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts?
I guess some of us are enjoying the argument, and have realised that this thread might make it to 1000 so long as we throw in something to keep it going now and again. 😉
Though I'm curious given your apparent disdain for this thread and that I don't think you've contributed for a couple of weeks, are you actually reading it all, or do you do a vanity search?
Wellt that is a fairly meaningless question but IMO the answer would still be no - two wrongs do not make a right and just because someone else even an overwhelming majority of people do something that you think is foolish there is no need for us to do so as well.
800+ posts? there is actually some good info in here and some good debating ponts. I have learnt a bit about thorium cycle nukes that I didn't know and I understand the arguement for nuclear expansion more even tho i still think it muddleheaded.
and we want a serious topic to get more posts than the bivvy thread
Wellt that is a fairly meaningless question
Good description. Of your "why can we have them but not other countries question". Especially if whether other countries have them or not makes no difference to your attitude to them. Clearly it's not actually worth me wasting my time answering that then.
Aracer - no its not the same at all as anyone c an see - but I knew you would use it as an excuse.
You don't want to answer that question because it points out the logical fallacies in your position.
According to the pro nukes that nukes are so good we must have them to prevent global warming but will deny them to countries we do not trust. Now if they are so useful that we should have them despite the known and serious drawbacks then how can you justify denying them to other countries?
Apoart from anything else that means they will not actually make any significant difference to CO2 outputs globally
No, I cba answering it given how apparently insignificant it is, and the difficulty of explaining to you why it's a complete strawman. If you were actually bothered I might have a go. The only logical fallacy is your question, and your assertion that if not all countries in the world have them nobody should (oh, and that 10 nuclear stations in the UK apparently makes less difference to global warming than 5 here and 5 in Iran).
Aracer - you still don't get it.
Now we know that nukes have serious drawbacks form a low supply of fuel to the issues over waste and the cost of building them. However you believe the case for having them is so good that it outweighs the disadvantages. So why would you deny them to some countries if they are that good. 10 here and 10 in Iran and 10 in Afghanistan would make more impact Global warming than just 10 here.
Its no strew man - its a very pertinent point tht shows just how inadequate the case for having new nukes in the UK is
Druidh was right - no pro nuke will answer it
So you don't see the contradiction with arguing on one hand that the fuel supply is low, and on the other that we should have lots more of them? Lots of us have argued the various fallacies in your question, but as usual you just keep ignoring those points, as seemingly we haven't given the answer you're after.
If you're into answering questions, how about this one for you: Given we have lots of power stations getting to the end of their life, that we're not going to manage to make huge reductions in energy consumption (much as that might be the answer in your idealised world) and that only a maximum of 3GW (peak) tidal is coming online in the next 10 years, how do you propose we generate electricity to stop the lights going out?
Of course no anti-nuke will answer that question.
Is it not fair to suggest that some states are less stable than others? Therefore some states as a whole (not talking about races or nations) can be less trusted to handle technology that *could* be used to produce nuclear weapons?
Anyway doesn't the UN allow states peaceful use of nuclear power..?
Aracer I have actually answered that several times-
I do not accept that energy usage reduction is impossible. I would go for energy usage reduction across the board - not just electricity but heating and so on as well. Massivly increased renewables - 3 GW ( actually significantly more) is what is planned for Scotland - it could be more and England could do some as well.
If there remains a gap then new efficient fossil plants mainly local CHP. We still should end up with being able to meet kyoto targets as we can reduce CO2 emissions form all areas of energy usage - and CHP reduces CO2 output even if fossil fueled as its more efficient.
As electricity productionis only waht around 25% of energy usage a 5% reduction is energy usage across the baord is equivalent in CO2 production to 20% reeduction in electricty - which is far more saving of CO2 production hat a few new nukes - as they produce a lot of CO2 especially during construction
Elfinsafety - Member
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts???
empty vessels make most noise....
I have actually answered that several times-
Dual standards, TJ? By the criteria you use to assess other people's answers to your questions, no you haven't. You can't cover it by energy use reduction as enough of that isn't feasible in the timescale - I even pointed that out in the question, so by including it you're not answering the question. Though you do actually raise a new point with your suggestion that a 5% reduction in energy usage is equivalent to 20% reduction in electricity - you can't do it that way. A 5% reduction in the amount of energy used to heat a house is a 0% reduction in energy usage if you have gas heating. A 5% reduction in the amount you drive is 0% reduction in electricity. We're talking here about keeping the lights switched on, so you have to reduce eletricity usage for it to do any good.
Massivly increased renewables - 3 GW ( actually significantly more) is what is planned for Scotland - it could be more
It won't be more - not within the timescales under discussion, otherwise there would be some sign of it already. I'm actually being pretty generous with 3GW given what is documented as in the pipeline, and given that at least one official document seems to want to include wind (and waves) in the figures we're interested in.
quite simply the 'edukator' guy is a numpty.... my comments about his own effort have been that he's effort for his own lift are laudable....
unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole....
most people do do not live in his simplistic world... most of humanity live in densly populated urdan environments.....
when you've clearly got enough funds to endulge in your own environmental experiment that's fine... but the options you've adopted at a small scale are extortionatley expensive for society.... and the burden will be carried by the poor... you may acheive a SIMPLE payback in your heavily subsidised world on your insignifiant time period but don't pretnd that that works for humanity as a whole
you should try reading other peoples posts properly instead of going around and around like a broken record........
Aracer I am looking at the energy usage and CO2 production of the country as a whole. 5% reduction in energy usage across the board would reduce the countries CO2 output by the same amount as a 20% reduction in Electricity usage.
Why you insist energy efficiency measures cannot make a 5% reduction across the board I 10 years I don't know. Lack of ambition? You don't have any hard data to back that up it is pure surmise.
My way there might be more CO2 out put from electricity production but less from the country as a whole.
so once again you fiddle the figures to get teh answer you want - wind and wave can be apart of it - of course they can. You still need back up capacity but they can generate some electricity over the year in a CO2 free way.
Your way would increase CO2 production over the next ten years due to the massive amounts of CO2 created in the building of newnukes - they payback would come in later years but the CO2 penalty of nukes is heavily front loaded.
I am talking about keeping the lights switched on whilst reducing CO2 production from the country as a whole. So a 5% reduction in energy usage for heating is a 5% reduction in CO2 output from the country - which is the critical thing.
I do not accept that energy usage reduction is impossible.
No, just extremely difficult.
But Aracer does think its impossible. He has nothing to base that on. 10 years to reduce energy consumption by 5% accross the board is a perfectly achievable target.
But it suits aracers argument to pretend that its impossible.
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts??
Because the energy question, and climate change, are crucially important topics.