You might well be right Julian. I agree nuclear isn't without risk.
The problem is we have an insatiable appetite for energy. To supply that energy, currently, there are only two technologies that can create it: Burn dinosaurs, Burn atoms.
I take the view that the risk associated with climate change far outweighs the risk of radiation damage.
Consumption will always drive supply. People "want".
Which was the thought behind my comment -
"i would rather not borrow from the lives future generations such as i can have an even wider screen tv"
The way i look at it is, if we produce a whole load of CO2 etc today, it will probably make a mess of things in the medium term. By "make a mess" i, of course, mean major environmental impact, things going seriously wrong, etc.etc.
But, that's medium term stuff. We will either get through it, or we wont. But its still not the sort of figures that youre looking at with atomic half lives.
As you and i well know, "half life" is, in itself, a mis-interpreted term. I would imagine that if you polled 100 people, the answers "the time taken for a radioactive isotope to become harmless" would repeat again and again.
I got towed off the M25 the other week. The tow truck driver had only been in the job a short while, as his previous job had folded. He was in offshore wind farm installation.
I asked him why it had folded. Because the governement wanted EDF to build hinkley point. So they manipulated the wholesale prices (as i understand) to entice EDF in, by guaranteeing them for the next 25yrs.
The next bit, i was told, but have not verified - the money had to come from somwhere, so the wholsale rate for wind gen was cut.
If the above is true, then the government manipulated the figures to support nuclear over renewables. Because in the short term, that seemed like their best option. Which it might have been. In the short term.
Necessity is the mother of invention and all that. Can you imagine how much more appealing low energy living would become if the power was realistically priced (as in taking into account the negative externalities)?
Nuclear has always been subsidised. Be it in the obvious Windscape for the arms race way, or by the children of tomorrow. There is no perfect option, but you have to do what you feel is right. And, in light of that, i would rather not use the health of humanity to power my wide-screen tv.
ps.
I was thinking only today, about bunding, and how the environment agency would probably dislike a load of peoples set-ups here. And the fact that, is it B12 (the most polluted place in western europe) is leaking... Noone even knows what's in those pools.
