Selfsufficientish.com

DominicJ wrote:"It cost roughly £12 a year now if you leave your phone charger plugged in but not attached to a phone,"

Rubbish.

"These are all things that add up to current demand for power that didn't used to exist."

Like incubators for premature babies and MRI scanners than can spot cancer early?
Attacking progress is the reason so many people are so against environmentalism, we dont want to live in a mud hut and subsist on soy curd.
You may be happy to live in a yurt with enough electricty for an hour of radio each week, but the rest of the world quite likes central heating and life expectancies above 50, and attacking those as the price of "green" makes the rest of us look like nutters.

Andy Hamilton wrote:One thing that everyone has failed to mention so far is USING LESS ELECTRICITY

It is my sincere hope that the rising costs of fuel will make us all more slightly aware of how much power we are using. I don't really understand why people don't think of energy conservation not as a green thing but as a sensible thing. It cost roughly £12 a year now if you leave your phone charger plugged in but not attached to a phone, think about that with an estimated 40%-60% rise in fuel costs - making it closer to £18 a year. Now add up the costs of various other appliances left on standby and think of how many days work or even overtime you have to do just to keep a phone on or a kettle full when it's boiling. As most of us are overdrawn a lot of the time then interest payments should be added to the over all costs.

Why oh why do people give up so much time in order to pay for little red lights to be on? We would perhaps not be having this argument if we all stopped wasting so much electricity!

Andy Hamilton wrote:One thing that everyone has failed to mention so far is USING LESS ELECTRICITY

Nuclear Energy in brief

1.The world's endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.


2. It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.

3. Shortages of uranium - and the lack of realistic alternatives - leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.

4. The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry's output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.

5. Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.

6. Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.

7. An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.

8. There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).

DominicJ wrote:Was not my intention to jump, I had intended to expand on "Rubbish".

Its just, every time someone "green" repeats something like that, a "normal" person assumes everyone who mentions solar power or hydro electric dams wants to break modern society and go back to living in communes of a few hundred, with sheep poo and mud houses and getting killed off by typhoid before your 30. That causes immeasurable damage to my cause, having heating and light in 5 years time.

DominicJ wrote:Was not my intention to jump, I had intended to expand on "Rubbish".