Comments on: The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn Bad Science And Scary Science Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:11:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: ron Wed, 01 May 2013 08:19:32 +0000 Whois Record says I recomend them.

By: ecommerce web design design Wed, 01 May 2013 07:38:05 +0000 Howdy would you mind letting me know which hosting company you’re using? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then
most. Can you suggest a good hosting provider at a fair price?
Kudos, I appreciate it!

By: Cornwall Surfing Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:26:21 +0000 Does your site have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an email.
I’ve got some creative ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it improve over time.

Also visit my web page: Cornwall Surfing

By: Anon Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:29:15 +0000 WTF does some stupid epetition (which politicians basically never take seriously) have to do with this?

By: ronangel Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:52:38 +0000 Please have a look at & sign my petition
Only the government can see details of signers.
Render safe, or remove wreck of liberty ship SS Richard
Montgomery of the coast sheerness Kent England. The ship sunk 67 years ago 20 august 1944 containing 1400 tons of high explosive some still in primed condition and libel to explode without warning. The wreck also may contain mustard gas or other chemical agents the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied under a freedom of information enquiry.

(copy and paste url in to your browser)

By: Links for 04-02-2008 | Velcro City Tourist Board Tue, 08 Feb 2011 02:39:25 +0000 [...] 7 – The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn [...]

By: Lajuana Lammey Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:47:12 +0000 Nice blog post! Well done.

By: DV82XL Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:02:10 +0000 I will cover your objection to nuclear energy first. In order:

1. Several studies have examined the possibility of attacks by a large aircraft on reactor containment buildings. The US Department of Energy sponsored an independent computer-modeling study of the effects of a fully fueled Boeing 767-400 hitting the reactor containment vessel. Under none of the possible scenarios was containment breached. Only ‘bunker busting’ ordnance would be capable – after several direct strikes – of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete that surrounds reactors. And besides, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets with maximum human casualties rather than well-guarded, isolated, low-population targets.

2. With all power generation technology, the cost of electricity depends upon the investment in construction (including interest on capital loans), fuel, management and operation. Like wind, solar and hydroelectric dams, the principal costs of nuclear lie in construction. Acquisition of uranium accounts for only about 10 per cent of the price of total costs, so nuclear power is not as vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of fuel as gas and oil generation.

A worst-case analysis conducted for the UK Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department of Business and Enterprise), which was accepted by Greenpeace, shows nuclear-generated electricity to be only marginally more expensive than gas (before the late-2007 hike in gas prices), and 10 to 20 times cheaper than onshore and offshore wind. With expected carbon-pricing penalties for gas and coal, nuclear power will be considerably cheaper than all the alternatives

3. California’s mandate for “green” power technology has demonstrated for all to see that the most highly acclaimed renewable energy technologies are a sham. Worse, for environmentalists, the large quantities of electricity generated by the more productive of the renewable technologies—quantities that have made them indispensable to Californians during their current electricity crisis—have converted these types of renewable energy into environmental threats in their own right.

4. I’m a member of the ‘Duck-and-Cover’ generation too, old man, and without putting too fine a point on it we are not the ones that will suffer the worst impacts of global warming, because by then we will likely be dead of old age. We cannot doom generations that follow because of the fears of our youth.

5. You seemed to have missed or edited out

6. Several nuclear power stations have had to ride out these types of events, and there has been no loss of containment and only very minor damage. Naturally there needs to be some forethought in the placement of these facilities, but that is true of big hydro, gas lines, and any other form of energy installation of significant size.

7. The statement is wrong. Many NPP are operated as merchant generators, make a profit, and provide a return on investment. They also pay insurance premiums, and are by no means absolved of responsibility, financial or otherwise. Note that the Price-Anderson laws only apply to the U.S., similar laws are NOT in force in all countries.

8. AECL has brought in their last seven nuclear reactor builds on, or before time, and on or under budget. This is public information, and you can go and look for yourself. What you write may be true in past cases, but the technology has matured to the point where most delays and added expenses can be avoided.

9. The dream of distributed power is fantasy. The idea of a power system composed of distributed energy resources, where much smaller amounts of energy are produced by numerous small, modular energy conversion units, like renewables which are then integrated into the grid like an energy Internet falls apart under any scrutiny Thing is each node whether a gigawatt natural gas power station or a single solar photovoltaic panel needs to be controlled and the necessary number of combined control tasks multiply as devices multiply. requirement of implementing Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) technology increases the number of control parameters. Accurate information on the state of the network and coordination between local control centres and the generators is essential. However an inherent risk of interconnected networks is a domino effect – that is a system failure in one part of the network can quickly spread. Therefore the active network needs appropriate design standards, fast acting protection mechanisms and also automatic reconfiguration equipment to address potentially higher fault levels. On top of which most of the proposed systems require intelligent loads as well, adding to network complexity and cost. Real, productive people need real, industrial-sized power. And, don’t even mention conservation. Conservation is no energy policy. Conservation is no more an energy plan than fasting is a food supply. Sure, greater efficiencies save energy, but we immediately have more uses for it.

10. The fact is that weapons and reactors have nothing in common despite a ready emotional association between them, at least partly because of the common adjective “nuclear.” There is no evidence showing any nuclear weapons program anywhere in the world has ever leveraged civilian nuclear power to meet its ends. The technology and the fuels used a very different, and the so-called dual use arguments a specious given the international inspection regime. Countries that refuse inspection, do not have to hide weapons programs in any case.

11. Australia has more than enough coastline to site NPP, and desalination is one of the activities that one can use waste heat for – a bonus I would think in an arid land.

12. Most NPP and all newer ones are designed to allow for in situ entombment should it be necessary, there would likely be enough people left to do the job. However what you are concerned about is also true for every large chemical plant, every massive hydro dam, and any number of thing we have built in the last century, nuclear isn’t even the worse risk in that scenario.

By: mr d Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:39:53 +0000 I don’t like nuclear power , but I am coming to the conclusion that a number of countries will have to end up building more nuclear plants if we are going to mitigate the affects of global warming . For some countries “cleaner ” sources like solar,hydro, geothermal . wind or wave are not practical. In that case I think nukes are a better alternative than coal plants . However, I notice you haven’t mentioned geothermal as a viable alternative to nukes. I am sure if enough effort is expended that this can be a very effective and cheaper alternative to nukes.its not got base load concerns and its pretty much risk free, no waste, very clean .
My main objections to nuclear plants are
1. Terrorist threat.Or conventional war target. You can’t tell me that reactors will be able to resist a guided missile or penetrating bomb attack by a hostile country .
2. Cost. I’ve heard figures of five to ten billion for new generation reactors. Of course , its almost impossible to know the true cost of a reactor. if we factor in ongoing wartime level security at all reactors for as long as there is a terrorist threat , cleanup costs , the potential cost of any containment breach , the costs of storing waste ( security needed for 250,000 years , can we guarantee that ?). All too often quoted costs are not holistic and are skewed towards giving a rosier picture of the potential efficiences and safety of nukes , just as this site seems to overlook a few very pertinent concerns about nukes.
3I think that there are several other avenues that can prove more cost effective and are certainly much safer. Geothermal. Wind , wave, solar .
4.A potentially mentally fragile society. The long term worry of being surrounded by very ripe targets creates an atmosphere of paranoia , I never really felt safe in the UK as no one was further away than 70 miles from a nuclear power plant. Those of us who grew up in the 50s with mock air raid drills and nuclear shelter evacuations know just how paranoid the 50s turned out to be .
6. Are reactors truly quake, hurricane and volcano proof ? . Government has to be very careful as to where it situates these plants.
7. Apart from one or two isolated cases, Nuclear hasn’t made a profit so far , its been heavily subsidised , operators want govt to absolve them of any accidents that take place.
8. Time and cost overruns , any new complex technology always has teething troubles and nuclear is no exception, historically the optimistic claims that were made of the technology have not eventuated.
9. I would rather have us develop many smaller more efficient power plants spread over an area , than rely on large power plants that can be taken out . although its probably seems more efficient to build one big plant I think that its a good thing if more of us generate our own power as society would be able to function much more efficiently in an emergency such as a major quake or hurricane . also we maintain independence from the big utilities , they can buy back our power , it works well here in australia.
10 . Proliferation. Look at the worry we are having over Iran . its too easy for a friend to become an enemy and if that enemy has nuclear technology then the chances are that they can create bombs if they make enough effort.
11. people don’t want to live next to reactors, for safety reasons- real or imagined – also they have to be situated near water sources, if they are situated in remote spots ( and here in Austalia most remote spots are arid ) then the large costs of linking them to the grid have to be factored in, I believe this is one of the chief costs entailed when using geothermal.
12.What do we do if our society breaks down ( say is decimated by plague,) and the plants can no longer be looked after ? Eventually they would leak and pollute and cause major catastrophe.
As I said before, its inevitable that we have more nuclear plants , but lets try to look holistically at any situation before we jump into the nuclear solution. we have only just begun to exploit natures forces to generate power, think how much further we would be along the road to clean energy if some of the billions spent on refining nuclear reactors had instead been used to develop geothermal or wind ?

By: David Craig Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:30:43 +0000 One at a time:

10. A degree of truth in the main premise – but it’s way too late to focus on any one thing, or even on just the noticeable items. The narrower the focus, the more intense the pain. Yes, coal is the worst case – but ceasing all coal production would be disastrous for those involved, while all the other sources go unchecked.

9. Well, it would be nice if we didn’t have to change anything at all – but it’s not practical or likely. All our infrastructure is going to have to change – any way; it has a limited lifespan, and will need to be replaced. Why not replace it to suit the 21st cntury, not the 20th? An infrastructure has always changed, over time. The mistake is to imgine that the current setup is somehow ideal.

8. ” “Natural” “Organic” and “Bio” do not mean “good.”” So what? Nothing to do with environmentalism.

7. Eh? It’s the business-as usual crowd who are the wildest optimists.

6. Well, duh! But we are perfectly entitled to criticise plain bad behaviour – especially when there are plenty of alternatives.

5. Bollocks. Taxation can be progressive, caps are neutral (but tend to weigh heaviest on the most profligate). Price rises certainly are regressive.

4. More nonsense. A purely American conceit, it would seem. Most of the rest of the world acknowledges that we can’t always get what we want.

3. Oh yeah? Tell that to the European railways. Do the huge and persistent subsidies on the US arms industry have the effects you describe?

2. No, every tiny effect isn’t worth much effort. But every class of effort that is excluded, increases the degree of effort required on everything else. At the heart of this is the need for the broadest possible action, to share out the costs. That puts a personal responsibilty on everyone to do what they can – even if it’s just a bit.

1. A really doozy,this one. Sacrificing the envionment is the surest way to destroy the economy.