Last night on TV's Question Time the discussion was going on. I was not et al impressed with the panel of politicians who were passionately advocating nuclear energy. One of the audience questions was "How will the government ensure safety" The other is "How will the nuclear waste will be disposed of as it takes infinitely longer than the existence of our entire civilization. None of these questions were answered. Instead two of the panel 's politicians threw some badly worded rhetoric at the audience about how renewable energy supplies only 3% of the requirements and that people of Scotland (where this discussion took place) went up in arms about the Wind Farms spoiling the vistas (I thought that was the Welsh... But hey, what do I know). Plus how we love out energy guzzling gadgets and how the demand for this wastefulness is increasing...blah blah. I expected a little more from a politician on national television. My concern is that building new nuclear power stations will set renewable energy back decades. There will be neither real incentive nor money to invest into an absolutely vital project that would guarantee safe and clean energy for future generations.
Now, I though this over and here is what I would propose.
Separated into three areas of concern.
* Firstly the issue of power generation. I am not entirely convinced that nuclear power is The Only Way. However, let's assume it is. Safety practices and nuclear waste disposal must be clearly explained to the public as in 'where', 'how' etc. BEFORE the power station can be built! (Why did I get the feeling that the panel of politicians on Question Time either had no idea or worse no liberty to discuss this matter?) AND ALL profits from nuclear generated power must be invested it into renewable energy, research and education. This would perhaps be the middle ground where both sides would have a piece of cake, which is more than what they have now. I am aware of the financial problems such as if the nuclear project isn't motivated by profit it will be hard to take off the ground, but hey, no one said this will be easy and I am not finished yet.
* The second (and here I a may become a bit unpopular here) is that energy consumption must be reduced by bringing in a legislation similar to the one about the Carbon Emissions. I mean setting some seriously mean targets.
1. New products must adhere to strict guidelines as to how much power they should reasonable use. This way designers will perhaps take more responsibility. I.e.; Products to be designed without LED's and standby features, Fridge door that shuts automatically, Washing machine that has a weight sensor so it switches to economy mode would be a good start.
2. Offices must switch off their computers-and other electricals overnight or when not in use for more than 6 hours. In aged technology standby was an important feature as appliances needed warm up time and Time=£. Home computers used to take over a minute to boot up just 10 year ago, now they take a few seconds so there is no need to have them running. Same as TV etc. We are in the age of LED lights. It has a place! It uses a fraction of the power and is powerful. BUT putting it in everything is defeating its purpose. (Even my extension cord for plugs has one. It glows red! Why does my plug hole must be lit like a Christmas tree??? -So I took it out.)
3. All homes to be assessed for reasonable electricity use and made to pay premium prices for consumption above this target. I am almost certain that my flat mates would make more effort to switch off the lights when not in use and think twice about roasting their lower limbs with 1500W blow heaters, putting one piece of clothing into the washing machine and leaving the fridge door open. And stop those morons who light their houses for Christmas with tacky plastic crap. It's tacky, disguisting and a complete waste of energy!
* Plutonium is the third consideration, as it's the main ingredient of a nuclear weapon. It's a rare element that is extracted from recycled nuclear waste. (Guess who does most of this dirty work of recycling? Yep! Your lovely green British island. The USA dumps their nuclear waste here too you know!) No plutonium=No nuclear weapons. And the only the complete annihilation of nuclear weapons can guarantee the possibility of world peace. As long they are out there so is fear. Think about that. Here are the facts so you know I'm not talking out of my butt: (taken from: Uranium Information Centre Ltd
* Over one third of the energy produced in most nuclear power plants comes from plutonium. It is created there as a by-product.
* Plutonium has occurred naturally, but except for trace quantities it is not now found in the earth's crust.
* There are several tons of plutonium in our biosphere, a legacy of atmospheric weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s.
* Plutonium isradiologicaly hazardous, particularly if inhaled, so must be handled with appropriate precautions.
If I read this correctly, there is not other way to get hold of Plutonium than to extract it from nuclear waste. So now what I am thinking what the hell all this is really about? UK being one of the largest recycler of nuclear waste (France and Germany are the other two) Tus the biggest producer of Plutonium, essential for nuclear bombs. Now I am not a rocket scientist (no pun intended) but even I can work this one out. It's about money again really isn't it?
(My wild imagination is off again to a scenario, where China, India and Pakistan or N.Korea even (I think Iraq is safely out of this one) get into a little skirmish and wipe out this planet with the help of a bit of British sourced Plutonium...oh dear!)
I think it is pretty clear that if we were to draw up the old "pros' and 'cons' grid we'd find that nuclear power with all it's 'cleanness' and efficiency isn't a real solution, only a decades old option that does not belong in the 21st century. It is a quick fix that will keep on haunting this country like the miners strike.
On the final note. I lived in Hungary during the Chernobyl disaster (Nuclear power station gone bad in the Ukraine in case you're too young to remember) The two countries' proximity and prevailing wind direction scared the hell out of a whole load of people who would rather have lived without electricity than to put up with the anxiety and fear of having deformed babies...
1 Comments:
Sean Smart said...
That is an interesting comment that you can only get plutonimum from nuclear waste for nuclear weapons. I read it in the paper that Blair wants to build more nuclear weapons, this might explain why he is pushing for the building of nuclear power stations! Ouch!!
Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:55:51 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment