http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/13021

(copy and paste url in to your browser)

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.

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.

In such a society, if one person becomes enterprising and tries to achieve more or to have more then is absolutely needed, they will end up succeeding more than others. The system favors those who will use their creativity, skill or drive to go a little bit further than the minimum and as soon as that gets rolling, people realize that it’s kinda nice to build an addition to their home to have some more space or to go and get some stuff they might not absolutely need.

Once this happens, the ideal of everyone living in modest little cottages that are exactly as large as they need for basic shelter and not a square inch larger completely breaks down. Those with drive and incentive to do more, to have more, to make more will do better and the ones who spend their time trying to do as little as they can get swept under.

How do you prevent this? Simple you must use force and draconian measures. Historically, every society that attempts to institute Marxist systems and absolute economic equality does this because they have to – it is the only way such a system has any chance of working.

In practice, you must keep a very close eye on everyone, and the moment anyone takes even the smallest action that is not in line with the societal plan or begins to do anything that might somehow oppose the instituted social order, they are immediately given the harshest punishment possible.

In any society that attempts to actually have true Marxism, true social and economic equality, there is, by necessity the mass use of execution, often immediate and without trial. The threat posed by anyone who does not conform is so great that you can’t have a trail system in which there is innocence until proven guilty – the burden must be on the other side. Besides, it’s society that matters, not the individual, so if a few innocents get killed in the process, it’s worth it for the greater good.

And this is why there are death squads in any system that has such planned equality. People are dragged out of their homes and shot at even the allegation of not supporting the state. Stalin did it, Lenin did it, Mao did it and even the various darling Marxists who people put on T-shirts lived by this idea. Ho Chi Mein, Che Guevara were all loyally committed to deadly force in keeping economic equality.

        Green Is The Color Of Life said:

Well I want to ask something and that is what if capitalism is the only system that has worked?

Maybe it has but it is such a horrible system for people and the environment maybe we need to get something else to work.

Yes, I admit that Marx was wrong on some things. I have studied Marx and where he thinks a big worldwide society is the way to do it, he was wrong. Communal living, however, is right. The difference is it needs to be on a local scale and we need to do away with our reliance on big societies and big technology. We should have technology, yes, but we need to change how we think of success. Capitalism might have a small place but basically we need to move back to small villages and small regional cities with limited trade when needed. We need to redefine success and be more modest and less materialistic.

It’s not communism. It is more like multiple communical minimal localisms. It is the best of all worlds and it’s fair, modest and human and earth centered.

We need to change the way we think and I already see it happening. More organics, more local farms, more agriculture, less oil, less energy, less consumption. More community and more family. Lets think of terms like ‘clan’ and ‘village’ as the basis.

Does this mean no electricity? No, of course not. Think of electricity generated in your little village by burning biomass and used only sparingly for small lights and that kind of thing.

We need technology but we don’t need so much. We need as little as we can possibly get by with.

This system is what we should work for and I believe if we all work hard enough we can do it.

So what if we save the environment with nuclear power and technology? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose! It’s just more of the same. Less modesty and less restraint.

This needs to be about how we change the way we live and define our lives!

Do you seriously think that this is even remotely viable?

There are an absolute myriad of issues I could raise here, but I’ll go with one that most people would probably overlook: population. First of all, there is absolutely no way you’ll feed earth’s current population on organic agriculture. It’s not even remotely possible. But put that aside for a moment, do you know what the population of earth is? Overpopulation has long been cited as potentially disastrous, both for humanity and the earth, but growth is finally slowing and projected to level out. If you break down population growth rate by country, you’ll find that the most affluent societies have slowed the most (enough that in some cases they now actually worry about “demographic collapse!) Whereas in more “humble” agrarian societies, it remains high. Put aside the fact that in places where people live the closest to your “utopian” vision they tend to have the lowest qualities of life, if we all somehow went back to that level of society, population would explode, starving people would carve up the grasslands and forests in an attempt to feed their families, and everyone and everything would be in a much worse situation.