Comparison shop your utility bills NOW!

[julesandtash]

Are you thinking of me (also Julian)? I am about 30 miles

[GedsJeep]

well if either of you i worried about radiation i wouldnt be living near there 

[therecklessengineer]

I don't disagree with your view Julian, but perhaps the solution.

The way I see it, climate change will make a mess of the whole planet, which is a certainty. A nuclear disaster, which isn't a certainty - and is a very low risk, would only make a mess of a small bit of it. Yes, you could potentially feel the effects planet wide, but the only dangerous bit would be contained in a very small area.

Nuclear isn't a long-term solution, but it's the only solution we've got for this moment in time. Long-term, nuclear can be replaced with renewables and hopefully new, less risky technologies (come on fusion!)

Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1162/

[julesandtash]

well if either of you i worried about radiation i wouldnt be living near there 

If I was worried about radiation, I wouldn't have worked in a Cornish Tin mine. The whole place was a controlled area, much like a nuclear power station.

[GedsJeep]

which is why they did what they did in cornwall.

less chance of being detected against background.


mind, that explains the locals

search NAWF.

naval aviation weapons faciity

[nigelb]

Coal and gas derived electricery is 100% reliable...in adding green house gases to the atmosphere. I couldn't give a monkeys chuff where mine comes from as long as when I turn on a switch the device works.

It's all very easy to sit on the very high horse that Julianf sits on. If he thinks that by paying his bill to someone who "claims" not to use nuclear energy in their supply then he's a fool.

Me..I just want the cheapest bill possible for the energy I use. A one man protest isn't a protest at all!

[Tony]

Page 14 (and on) of this study "reality or rhetoric? green tariffs for domestic consumers" details how green tariffs actually translate to reality for each supplier:

http://www.vision21.org.uk/userfiles/green-tariffs.pdf

I think it's very commendable to consider where your energy comes from, and how its production can affect others now and in the future.  However, paying a premium for green energy (and indeed, following an environmentally friendly lifestyle overall) is often luxury only the well off can enjoy.

As for the carbon footprint of creating wind turbines and solar panels, well, that's another story.

[therecklessengineer]

Coal and gas derived electricery is 100% reliable...in adding green house gases to the atmosphere. I couldn't give a monkeys chuff where mine comes from as long as when I turn on a switch the device works.

It's all very easy to sit on the very high horse that Julianf sits on. If he thinks that by paying his bill to someone who "claims" not to use nuclear energy in their supply then he's a fool.

Me..I just want the cheapest bill possible for the energy I use. A one man protest isn't a protest at all!

In a capitalist world, this is exactly the view of 99% of the population. Not just in energy, but everything. There are of course different ways of adding up the cost beyond the obvious dent in your bank balance.

Burning dinosaurs to create energy is currently is very cheap in comparison to other forms. But, what we rarely consider as individuals is the overall cost to the species. How do you quantify the cost of climate change? That's a pretty difficult question to answer.

One way in which we're forced to consider the overall view is via action at governmental level. Hence the heavy investment in renewable technologies (and also other visible efforts - carbon trading, higher car tax for more pollution vehicles etc). Sadly, these are not sufficient for supplying the UKs energy needs - we need something more concrete. Hence the recent investment in nuclear.

I might not be terribly happy that we're building nuclear plants, but if you consider the overall picture, it's the only option we've got.

[neisel]

Since we've strayed OT into the bigger picture here I wonder if someone can explain something that has never really made any sense to me.

We here politicians & economists talking about growth all the time & how it is a good, even a necessary thing.

Why?

[greasemonkey]

The world is on a track that it isn't going to leave, until the track falls apart.
Global warming and oil running out was yesterdays news, twenty five years ago.
Nothing has been done about it. Environmental issue are probably more severe now.

There is plenty of talk, and no action.
I couldn't give two hoots either way. I see so much government lead environmental damage in the farming community, I'm pretty well immune to it in the wider world.
Farmers being paid extortionate sums of taxpayers money to continue with highly destructive practises, and that's never going to change.
A child can see it, but so long as the money keeps going in the right direction, it'll keep happening.

Might as well command the wind to stop blowing.
The flow of money is a lot more important than the pesky environment, or people. 

[photoman290]

i am on the fence regarding nuclear. good arguments on both sides.  i make all my own power anyway.solar with bio fueled generator as winter back up. i live even further into cornwall than jules. the radon issue is not a problem for me as i would rather live here and avoid the traffic pollution. it is really noticeable when i go up country, usually oxford or cambridge in the summer.
 as regards the satellite i think,but not certain, the plutonium used for the power cells in satellites is a short half life type. not the same isotope as produced in nuclear reactors. in the context of CO2 production,one decent volcano eruption will produce a lot more than we can produce in a 100 years. does CO2 add to global warming probably. who does most research into alternative energy? the people most likely to lose big time. the oil companies.

[julianf]

as regards the satellite i think,but not certain, the plutonium used for the power cells in satellites is a short half life type. not the same isotope as produced in nuclear reactors.

Its an example of how traveled the particles are, rather than the danger of the power souce*.  You would need to check the details, but, as i remember it, there was a satellite that came down, with a traceable isotope on board.  Ie there wasnt this isotope about in "the wild" in any discernible quantity.
And after the re-entry burn up, the isotope was found all over the globe, to the extent that theres pretty much nowhere it wasnt found.

The strontium in milk teeth study was, basically, the same.  That the south pacific tests isotopes were built into the bone formation of children evreywhere.  You, I, your neighbor, and the person on the other side of the globe - we all all exposed, no matter where the release site is.


*again, from memory, but i think there were only about 2 satellites, ever, that had full reactors on board.  And i think one of them came down over Canada.  The soviets seemed obsessed with it.  Did you know they even had a nuclear powered (as in decay, rather than fission) lighthouse?

[GedsJeep]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/29/sheep-farmers-chernobyl-meat-restricted

[greasemonkey]

Farmers complaining about their suffering from an environmental catastrophe.
Oh, the ironie........

[GedsJeep]

i know two farmers that had their whole flocks destroyed, and were paid a fifth of the price the sheep were worth.

one killed himself after watching four generations of his familys work wiped out from 1700 miles away.