Greenpeace: Arctic 30

Future bulids will be cheaper owing to economies of scale:
Ah...

That'll be why the cost of the first reactor has jumped several times then... ;)

£12bn, £14bn, £16bn?...What do you reckon the final figure will be?

And how about you give us real world evidence of your 'economies of scale' theory...(you won't because you can't!)

And why are you still unable to give definitive clean up costs...

Dream on!... :rolleyes:
 
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Alternatives:
Biogas
Less consumption
Making Russia and the Middle East rich.
Gasification to an extent.

There you go...

Of course all the energy firms won't like that!

So maybe they'll just follow the example of water companies and charge us more for less via metering...

Oops...they're planning to do that via 'smart meters'!

Either way we get screwed - either through the latest nuclear subsidies, pollution of our local enviroment, or just plain old 'green taxes'...
 
Alternatives:
Biogas
Less consumption
Making Russia and the Middle East rich.
Gasification to an extent.

There you go...

Of course all the energy firms won't like that!

So maybe they'll just follow the example of water companies and charge us more for less via metering...

Oops...they're planning to do that via 'smart meters'!

Either way we get screwed - either through the latest nuclear subsidies, pollution of our local enviroment, or just plain old 'green taxes'...

Unfortunately, the only way to consume less is to earn less money (or carbon taxes). History shows that energy efficiency improvements result in an increase in consumption in the long run, so if we all just used LED bulbs, and switched them off when not in use and all other measures we hear about, the savings will result in more money being spent elsewhere.

Earning just enough to live is a very environmentally friendly thing to do.


Any upgrade to the National Grid will cost money though, and while global demand will only go up for the foreseeable future (as a trend), demand in the UK hasn't gone up that much since 1970 on a per household basis.

Of course increases in energy demand globally cannot continue indefinitely, and a 3% yearly increase will see us exceeding the total energy we receive from the sun in the year 2794(ish).

And in the year 3985 will have exceeded the total output of the sun, and the Earth will be hotter than the surface of the sun!

By 4773 it will exceed the output of the milkyway galaxy!

OK, a bit of a fun thought experiment.

But we do need new power stations, as both old nuclear and coal close down, and we need low carbon technology.
 
Unfortunately, the only way to consume less is to earn less money (or carbon taxes).
And in one sentence you've fallen into the politicians/corporate trap... :rolleyes:

History shows that energy efficiency improvements result in an increase in consumption in the long run
What about the steady decline in petrol usage in the uk due to more fuel efficient vehicles?......

Shadowed of course by the equally steady rise in prices.... ;)

Its no mistake that the western economic system requires a positive inflation figure to function!

Funny then that when growth falls governments start printing money which rather f*cks up your argument!
 
Unfortunately, the only way to consume less is to earn less money (or carbon taxes).
And in one sentence you've fallen into the politicians/corporate trap... :rolleyes:

History shows that energy efficiency improvements result in an increase in consumption in the long run
What about the steady decline in petrol usage in the uk due to more fuel efficient vehicles?......

Shadowed of course by the equally steady rise in prices.... ;)

Its no mistake that the western economic system requires a positive inflation figure to function!

Funny then that when growth falls governments start printing money which rather f*cks up your argument!

You're not thinking of the bigger picture. If you get a more efficient car, you use less fuel. That saving goes into something else, so the economy benefits. You spend more on fuel overall due to Government tax? Where does that tax go to? Government spending.

Focusing on just one fuel doesn't work.

The more you earn, the more gets spent. The less energy an indiviual consumes due to increased efficiency, the more they will spend on goods.

Even if you decide to save said money, the bank will use that money to loan to others.

So if you simply earn less, your impact will be reduced far more effectively than energy efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Beyond that, you can decide to use "clean fuels" or low carbon technology, so Biomass, nuclear, renewables etc. so the energy we do use has minimal impact.
 
You're not thinking of the bigger picture.
Thats exactly what I'm looking at... :rolleyes:

If you get a more efficient car, you use less fuel. That saving goes into something else, so the economy benefits. You spend more on fuel overall due to Government tax? Where does that tax go to? Government spending.

Focusing on just one fuel doesn't work.

The more you earn, the more gets spent. The less energy an indiviual consumes due to increased efficiency, the more they will spend on goods.

Even if you decide to save said money, the bank will use that money to loan to others.
Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism...

f*cked if you spend, f*cked if you don't... ;)
 
You're not thinking of the bigger picture.
Thats exactly what I'm looking at... :rolleyes:
Then how do you explain the increase in energy consumption worldwide?
We are using more efficient goods (cars, appliances etc), and since 1970, our energy consumption hasn't changed that much, but we are importing far more than we used (and exporting as well, but to a lesser extent). Our embedded energy has grown enormously

The more we save in energy, the more we spend elsewhere, so we buy more goods. A sizeable portion of which comes from countries like China, with less efficent methods of manufacture, but they make it cheap. So emissions go up as we save energy.

Although even if you concentrate on one fuel (which one shouldn't), you can find instancies of fuel consumption going up when people switched to more efficient cars (in the US) in the 1970s during the OPEC issue.

Energy efficiency increases our standard of living, and can improve profits for companies, but it won't save the world without carbon taxes.
 
Then how do you explain the increase in energy consumption worldwide?
And there I was thinking we were talking about energy requirements in this country in this topic, and how we satisfy our own energy needs... :rolleyes:

Of course we 'offshore' production (although that is likely to reverse), but then maybe you ought to be lecturing the chinese about their economy rather than encouraging on us a dangerous energy generating source!

And I'm still interested to hear whether you would take your kids/encourage those with kids to go to the nuclear exclusion zones mentioned and eat produce that grow there, especially since as I have pointed out 'rational monitoring' has already taken place...

Yes or no please...
 
And there I was thinking we were talking about energy requirements in this country in this topic

And I'm still interested to hear whether you would take your kids/encourage those with kids to go to the nuclear exclusion zones mentioned and eat produce that grow there

Make your mind up. Are we talking about this country or Chernobyl?
 
Make your mind up. Are we talking about this country or Chernobyl?

The same risks of nuclear apply regardless of geographical borders... :rolleyes:

But would you take your kids to chernobyl?... ;)
 
Make your mind up. Are we talking about this country or Chernobyl?

The same risks of nuclear apply regardless of geographical borders... :rolleyes:

No they don't. We have much better safeguards than the Russians put in place and we design our reactors properly.

But would you take your kids to chernobyl?... ;)

Of course not.

We don't have any!
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top