|
|
Recent articles by NellyNonukes
This author has not submitted any other articles.
Recent Articles about Bristol ProtestsChina, capitalism and class struggle May 18 13 Nuclear power set to kill off renewable energy sector bristol |
protests |
news report
 Friday August 10, 2012 16:50 by NellyNonukes
 This autumn the Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, is set to introduce a new Energy Bill. One of the key facets of this bill is the introduction of a new energy framework based on ‘contracts for difference’. This could be the death-knell for the renewable energy sector. In essence, this means that the government will offer ‘low carbon’ energy companies (including the nuclear power sector) long-term energy contracts. These contracts will guarantee that a pre-agreed price is paid by the State for the energy these companies produce. A big, fat cheque to EDF This is meant to provide the long-term security that investors are looking for to put their money into a low carbon future. In reality, it’s a big, fat, blank cheque to companies like EDF who want to build more nuclear power stations but who currently can't persuade investors that it's a good idea. Many critics fear that if these new nuclear subsidies are given the green light, nuclear power will quickly become the main source of 'low carbon' energy in the UK. This is what Ecotricity’s website has to say about it: ‘Green energy company Ecotricity has told MPs on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee that draft Energy Bill proposals are currently a choice between nuclear power and renewables. ‘Giving evidence at the Houses of Parliament, Ecotricity Director Asif Rehmanwala said plans to entice big energy companies to invest in building new nuclear plants by artificially raising the price paid for electricity (known as ‘Contracts for Difference’ or CfDs) – could in contrast put small suppliers out of business, dissuade new entries into the market and impact the building of new green energy.’ Davey denies that this move is a thinly-veiled subsidy for the nuclear sector. But clearly, it’s a double-whammy for the British public. We’ll be the ones paying for this new deal through our taxes and through rising energy bills….while our kids will be left with a nightmare legacy of high-level radioactive waste. The good news….. The good news is that the tide is turning against 'new nuclear' power. In March, around 1,000 people blockaded the entrance to Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset to show their opposition to EDF Energy's plans to build a giant new mega-reactor on the site. It was the largest 24-hour blockade of a power station for several decades and protesters were joined by environmentalist Jonathon Porritt, Green MP Caroline Lucas and CND’s general secretary Kate Hudson. In the meantime, the spiralling constructions costs of the first new EPR reactors in France and Finland are causing market jitters around the world. EDF, a French state-owned company, is now so worried about its investment in Hinkley and Sizewell that it’s looking to for new partners to spread the risk. Meanwhile, in Japan, tens of thousands of people are taking to the streets every Friday evening to call for an end to nuclear power. (As I write, the protests are attracting between 75,000 and 170,000 depending on whether you believe the police or protest organisers). Allied demonstrations are also being held in other countries including the UK, Germany and France. But there is no room for complacency. Several Chinese energy companies are now coming out of the woodwork to look into the viability of building new nuclear power stations at Wylfa in Anglesey and Oldbury in Gloucestershire. In the meantime, the government still seems hell-bent on getting new nuclear power stations built – whatever the social and environmental cost. The next four months.. Nancy Birch, a spokesperson for the Stop New Nuclear Alliance, says the UK is entering a critical period: "We need to make as much noise as we can to wake the public up to the environmental and political insanity of making nuclear power the dominant form of energy in the UK." She continues, "There is a future without nuclear. Germany has set out a nuclear-free roadmap that is safe, affordable and designed to enable the country to reach its commitment of 80% carbon reduction by 2050. The burning question is, if Germany can do it, why can’t we.' What you can do The Stop New Nuclear Alliance is holding a weekend protest camp folllowed by a mass trespass of the Hinkley C site in Somerset from 5-9th Ocotber. A mass lobby of Parliament in the Autumn is also being planned by an allied campaign prior to the Energy Bill debate. Nancy Birch continued: "We are encouraging people to come along and be arrested at the mass trespass to show how strongly the UK is opposed to making nuclear the dominant form of energy." "It’s impossible to predict how EDF or the police are going to respond to the trespass. But we will be providing a breakdown of the options at the camp over the weekend and we will ensure that everyone has a role to play – whether or not they are prepared to be arrested. We’ll also be sending out a legal briefing nearer the time via our website." Further details of the protest weekend can be found at: http://stopnewnuclear.org.uk |
printable version
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (31 of 31)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31I am no fan of Nuclear - But no fan of wind power either. Wind power is just a con that does not give energy when you need it, requires some sort of back up system unless you want power cuts.
The temples to stupidity kill birds and bats and put money in the pockets of the elete who have friends or relatives that back the ridiculous concept.
So to me Nuclear has to be considerred - as for renewables - the wind power debacle is making the concept of renewables a dirty word to most people who can add up.
The only truly sustainable option _ is to consume less _ much less.
Coal and oil has had and continue to have billions in subsidies worldwide. Yet wind has dramatically improved its efficiency in the last 2 decades and is getting better all the time. Some states in Germany now get 20% of the energy from wind. This is a win/win technology! http://climatecrocks.com/2012/04/30/new-video-us-wind-e...oads/
Wind power is not efficient and only "works" because of subsidies. Look at who backs them and then ask yourself "who is the real beneficiary?" It will certainly not be those who have to pay for the power generated by this variable and non reliable source. If we had constant wind to power the turbines then OK - it would work - but we don't - so there has to be gas fired power stations as back ups. These cannot be left idle because they need to kick in as soon as the wind drops.
Anyone with a calculator can do the maths and work out that wind power is fine as long as the population does not mind only having power when the wind is blowing (and not blowing too hard at that) Thu not having constant power UNLESS there is a back up system.
And having that back up system on standby is almost as expensive as having the back up system working to produce the power in the first place.
Then consider the environmental cost to wild life of having huge wind turbines chopping things out of the sky and the whole thing starts to look like the croc of shit that it is
Watch this and weep!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw
Then tell me that wind power is the answer.
Clearly some still have a long way to go to get their heads around the fact that 'business as usual / unsustainable consumption' is Ecocide.
We now have companies jumping on the bandwagon to produce these things BECAUSE of the Feed In Tarrif kick back - it is unsustainable. It is not business as usual - it is madness.
The whole scam is putting money into the likes of David Camerons father in law - it is all a crock of shit and those that support wind power refuse to see the facts because it does not fit the overall agenda.
And madnes that kills wild life not sustains it.
As I say - watch that video of the dying eagle after it has been knocked out of the sky by one of these horrendous monuments to "renewable energy" and tell me that these things are good news!
anything is better than nukiller power !!!!
nukiller waste is the ultimate external cost of nukiller power.
I am not a fan of Nuclear either
But seriously - Anything is better?
Why don't we just stick with coal and gas then?
We need to think the issues through - not state silly platitudes and reproduce tired old posters
fucking right I'm emotional!
i have two children and I am shit-scared for their future!
do you have any idea what nuclear waste is, or what dangers it poses?
radioactive waste is hazardous to most forms of life and the environment, can you not understand this fact?
or are you a refugee from clive hammonds nuclear-green-washing call-centre?
educate yerself, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
also: http://www.good.is/post/japanese-scientists-find-mutant...hima/
emotional me? fucking right i am! REPLYING IN UPPER CASE FOR EMPHASIS ONLY - NOT SHOUTING
author by anti~nukillerpublication date Thu Aug 16, 2012 20:13Report this post to the editors
fucking right I'm emotional! I KINDA GATHERED THAT ;0)
i have two children and I am shit-scared for their future! SO DO I AND I AM NOT - IF YOU ARE THAT SCARED YOU NEED HELP AND PROBABLY ARE NOT A GOOD PARENT IF YOUR IRATIONAL FEARS SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR KIDS. - GROW UP AND GET A LIFE MATE!
do you have any idea what nuclear waste is, or what dangers it poses? YES I DO AND SO FAR APART FROM THE US DROPING TWO WEAPONS THE NUMBER OF "PROBLEM" INCIDENTS HAVE BEEN FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. ALSO TECHNOLOGY IS FAR BETTER NOW THAN WHEN 3 MILE ISLAND HAPPENED AND OF COURSE OLD SOVIET TECHNOLOGY COULD HARDLY BE COMPARED TO WHAT IS AVAILABLE NOW. EVEN MONBIOT STATES THAT COMPARED TO THE RIDICULOUS CONCEPT OF WIND POWER - NUCLEAR IS AN OPTION THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERRED.
radioactive waste is hazardous to most forms of life and the environment, can you not understand this fact? YES I CAN - AND SO CONTROLS NEED TO BE FOOLPROOF.
or are you a refugee from clive hammonds nuclear-green-washing call-centre? WHO AND WHY WOULD I BE - ARE YOU A AGENDA DRIVEN ALARMIST WHO WISHES NOTHING BUT THE DISMANTLING OF SOCIETY?
educate yerself, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste WIKIPEDIA IS PANTS - PATHETIC - EVEN SCHOOLS FAIL YOU IF YOU THAT AS A REFERENCE SOURCE.
also: http://www.good.is/post/japanese-scientists-find-mutant...hima/ - YES THE FUKISHIMA SITUATION WAS TRAGIC AND MORE THAN A WAKE UP CALL TO A COMPLACENT NATION.
BUT -
"There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html
AND
"However, the safety record of nuclear power is good when compared with many other energy technologies"
AND THAT WAS FROM THE SOURCE YOU QUOTED - WIKIPEDIA
EVEN THE WORDS UNDER THE PICTURE OF THE MUTATED BUTERFLY YOU POSTED STATES SOMETHING ENTIRELY AT ODDS WITH YOUR ALARMIST VIEWPOINT.
I DO NOT THINK IT IS I THAT NEED TO EDUCATE MYSELF - I WOULD SUGGEST AS POLITELY AS I CAN THAT IT IS YOU.
KIND REGARDS
Does all that shouting and spinning mean you wont be coming to the camp then Clive?
Such a shame if you dont turn up, you will be SO missed :)
Sounds like a blast.
Capitalists and tories just love to tell us how safe Nukiller power is... well they would would'nt they, they are in it right up to their greedy corrupt share-holding necks!
http://www.wrecklessfaith.com/ten-nuclear-events-in-10-...days/
OK so lets have a look at how these terrible terrible people use there share holdings to ruin the planet shall we? Nick Clegg's wife works for a Spanish wind company, David Cameron's father-in-law earns loads of wonga from wind turbines on his estate and Ed Davey's brother is all wrapped up in renewables and Tim Yeo at DECC likewise. A look at his vested interests makes interesting reading. And yet we have the same old tired old rhetoic banded about by the same old tired individuals and all they do is support the very people they profess to hate.
Or we could consider nuclear, get actually cheaper and clean energy rather than seeing it spiral in price due to the ridiculous RO system (rather than a carbon tax)... But get it wrong and it could be devastating. However - so far the history of nuclear is one of accidents yes - but less that for other energy sources and less damaging to the planet.
Wind turbines should not be regarded as renewable energy because they emit more CO2 emissions though their own carbon footprint and that of their back-up. This coupled with the requirement for regulating reserves because of their inefficiency and intermittency when compared to running highly efficient gas-fired power stations at one-third of the cost.
As has been said - wind power only makes sense if you have a skewed agenda - if you can use a calculator or simply add up the facts in your head - you soon realise that these bird and bat chopping machines are pure follies - built by a select few who are on a mission. The whole bloody thing is barmy.
And now the UN states that the EU must listen and not bully and ride roughshod over peoples valid concerns about these ridiculous follies:-
The Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which enforces the Aarhus Convention, has released its final findings and recommendations regarding the case presented by Mr. Pat Swords, a chemical engineer from Ireland (1). In a nutshell, the UN is saying that if the EU wants to be in compliance with the said Convention, to which it is a party, it must have its 27 Member States properly reassess their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP), and submit them to popular consultation. The Aarhus Convention requires that, in matters affecting the environment, the citizens be consulted in a transparent manner before any policy is embarked upon. The Convention applies principles adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.
The NREAP’s of the 27 EU countries, each calling for huge subsidised investments in wind power, and for the industrialisation of most of their heretofore tourist-friendly landscape, are in breach of the Convention. They have been imposed from the top down without properly informing and consulting the people. Worse: the programmes were not even properly assessed by the governments themselves, who took at face value the information provided by the wind industry.
Says Pat Swords, author of the complaint to the UN: “the Compliance Committee has shown that the EU’s renewable energy programme is proceeding without 'proper authority'.” This is no trifle matter: the EU presently has about 60,000 wind turbines and related infrastructure, which have cost some €180 billion. This figure is about to be multiplied, yet no assessment has been made of the effectiveness of this investment, e.g. are fossil fuels actually being saved, by how much, etc.”
The European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW), and the World Council for Nature (WCFN), are also concerned about the lack of legitimacy of the EU’s energy policy, which has been riding roughshod over both the health of its citizens (the infrasound issue) and the protection of natural reserves known as SPA’s and Natura 2000 areas, within which windfarms have been built as if they were causing no harm.
Conservationist Mark Duchamp, speaking in the name of both organisations, states: “The UN has ruled that the EU’s renewable energy policy is in violation of the Aarhus Convention. This implies that it is also violating EU laws that have been voted in order to adapt EU legislation to the Convention. Legal counsels will have to determine if this is a case of breach of legal duty, and if personal responsibilities may be sought.”
In the meantime, notes Mr. Swords, “the 27 Member States’ renewable energy plans (NREAP) should be suspended, and proper assessments conducted to address precise issues, e.g. what quantity of harmful gasses, if any, will be saved by the large number of windfarms being planned. Indeed, a number of studies by independent engineers have shown that they may be saving none.” (2)
Also, he adds, public participation has to take place 'when all options are open'. “In essence one cannot adopt a target, such as 20% of renewables by 2020, and then gloss through public participation. The assessments have to be done first, followed by public participation, with these inputs effectively taken into account in the final decision. The target is the final outcome of the process, not the starting point.”
EPAW insists that “proper assessment” does not mean accepting as facts the questionable claims vaunted by salesmen, as has been done to date. The conflict of interest is only too evident. Truly independent experts must be appointed to evaluate the effectiveness of windfarms in reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Duchamp, speaking specifically for WCFN, claims it is equally unacceptable to entrust the preparation of required environmental impact studies to the windfarm promoters themselves.
“It is an insult to intelligence, and a lack of respect for any and every citizen of the EU”, he warns.
“Yet this is what has been done to date, with disastrous results for protected species of birds and bats.”
Pat Swords concludes: “the EU’s renewable energy programme has by-passed proper assessment and democratic accountability, and the EU has been found to be in breach of the Aahrus Convention. The National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the 27 Member States must be suspended and submitted to objective assessment.
The public must be informed in a transparent manner, invited to participate in the elaboration of the NREAP’s, and their input must to be taken into account in the finalised decision. The Aarhus Convention protects the people’s democratic rights; this is why it is so important to uphold it”.
References:
(1) - Letter and attachment sent by UNECE to the EU Commission and to the plaintiff, Mr. Pat Swords, chem. engineer. http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=c3
(2) – The latest independent study, based on actual data from official sources, shows only 4% of fuel savings realised by wind turbines as compared to their installed capacity. When wind energy exceeds 20% of the national energy mix, the savings turn negative – Dutch engineer C. (Kees) le Pair: http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=backup14
Pro-nukers can be relied on to be hysterical always, observe them as they twist and squirm and spin and deceive and manipulate and lie and hide the truth and paint everything with with their sickly greenwash-speak just so that we will keep giving them loadsa money.
"Nuclear Power will be too cheap to meter" is what they they told us back in the early nuclear days.
And when all their lying and spin and ducking and diving and nuclear bullshit fails to convince us, what do they do?
When their nuclear shit inevitably hits the natural fan, what do they do then, how do they spin it, how do they deceive us?
Simple, and this is why anybody who knows anything about their pro-nuclear war-mongering power games and money spinning radio-active malarkey will never trust anything they ever say no matter how well they spin it.
Check out why Windscale was renamed as Sellafield.
Read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/11/sella...ident
Agreed that those in charge have questions to answer - and I agree with the article you link to. I am no fan of Nuclear - but do feel it should be considerred. But what I find amusing in a kinda gobsmacked way is how the advocates of wind-power allow those same people/types of people that were advocates of the nuclear dream, to dish out the same bullshit and lies re wind-power being "free" and "green" and so let the corporate shits fill their pockets all over again! As I say - any one with a calculator can see that the powers that be are milking the system for all it is worth and yet some who profess to abhor such corporate greed happily stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Talk about self delusion!
The only truly sustainable option _ is to consume less _ much less.
DO YOU GET IT YET?
That you want others to consume less whilst you yourself post on here using electricity generated by gas fired power stations, Nuclear power and a smidgin of wind power.
Typical strawman argument.
Wind power does not use LESS resources - it uses MORE.
Do the maths
Then you just might "get it"
Meanwhile you seem to be "in bed" with exactly those same people types you profess to hate because of their greed.
Would having Nuclear power available but use less of it make it acceptable? And what about a few coal fired power stations? OK if we use less here as well. So perhaps we should leave things as they are and just have a few brown outs and regular power cuts.
No of course not.
If you really want us all to use less then for goodness sake do the research about exactly what is the TRUE cost of these bat and bird chomping follies - PLEASE!
nukiller 'energy' was born out of the 2nd world war, to create weapons of mass destruction, witness Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
'peaceful' nukiller energy was how they got US to pay for producing plutonium for the militarys bombs and missile warheads, electricity was a by-product of the nukiller process about which they boasted "It will be too cheap to meter" - this effectively was supposed to give 'free' electricity to all british homes.
nuclear proponents lie and cheat, period.
wind power is different in at least 2 major aspects:
#1. it has nothing to do with the production of weapons of mass destruction whose radio-active side-effects linger for centuries.
#2. there is no radio-active waste associated with wind power to be 'bestowed' on future generations.
Total agreement re Nuclear Power But you must admit that technology has moved n a bit since 1940. And are we not hearing the same spin about free energy re wind power??
When the reality is that it is not "free" it is very very expensive and only makes sense if you pay the rich even more money because they are the people that make the decisions - you just seem to go along with them because you have not thought it through.
Wind Power costs in tax revenue in blighted countryside, in back up power stations required to be "on standby" costing a hyge amount just so they can kick in when the wind does not blow at all or blows too hard. And not forgetting the birds and the bats.
I am no fan or advocate of Nuclear but I do think it should be considerred - the premise of the original post is false.
It will be costings and efficiency data that kills off windpower - unless the rich and powerful manage to fool a lot more of you into supporting them that is.
Unless I'm very much mistaken Fukishima did not go belly up in 1940 either... and worse is yet to come most likely given how capitalists love to cut safety corners
http://www.wrecklessfaith.com/ten-nuclear-events-in-10-...days/
Report from thinktank IPPR says wind power is an efficient and reliable energy source, contrary to claims made against it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/29/wind-pow...unded
I think you should note that the Japaneses issue was complacement management coupled with a mega undersea earthquake and resulting Tsunami.
Dear old Communist Russia simply needed a centralised government and a history of incompetence to produce Chernobyl.
So I really do not think the economic system is the problem - the problem is some individuals having such intelectual myopia that they can not see the wood for the trees.
Sorry but blaming Capitalists and then jumping into bed with them to support their bollock up of a concept hardly lends you credibility. Neither does citing Japan and then ignoring Chernobyl.
But like I say - I am no supporter of Nuclear - What confuses me is how some seem to hate Capitalists but support them in their quest to inflict a useless and damaging "capitalist" concept on all of us. Research who is behind Wind Power and I think you would have a change of heart.
Who'd of thunk it LOL?
In February more than 100 Tory MPs sent a letter to David Cameron arguing for a cut in state support for onshore wind power and describing turbine technology as inefficient and less reliable than traditional power sources.
Sounds like you have almost finished your training at the notorious Clive Hammond Greenwashing Call-Centre 'Fishy'... congratulations!
I think those MPs were correct to do what the did - though I note that the poster conveniently ignores that fact that a couple of Lib Demsa and some Labour party MP's also put their names to the list. A NI DemUnionist also. But hey!! never let reality get in the way of a good spin eh?
You are guilty of the classic smoke and mirrors of those desperately trying not to deal with the main issue.
So what about stopping skirting round the edges of this real issue and try to move beyond the silly accusations of greenwash and ask yourself exactly WHAT you are doing supporting the likes of Dong Energy
"Dong Energy has signed an estimated £2.3bn deal to buy 300 giant Siemens wind turbines for use off the coast of Britain. "
http://www.dongenergy.co.uk/Pages/landing.html
And they do this not because the product makes money for them - it is the Tarrifs that make their profit - and you tag along behind them looking up in admiration like doe eyed puppies.
Greenwash????????????????
Have you ANY idea?
How many migrating birds and indiginous bats have to be sacrificed before you question the rhetoric? and ask if your support for this industry is valid?
"the truth is obvious"
errrr..... not to you it aint mate, cuz youve been a capitalist for too long
Those that blindly support the flawed concept of Wind Power are stooges for the Capitalists that want to build and profit from the bird and bat chomping monstrosities. How about dealing with your stance on that rather than hide behind the silly name calling.
Most people do not want to see any birds hurt by anything, and personally I do my best to consume as little electricity as I possibly can, but if 'Fishy' is SO concerned by the numbers of birds killed by windpower perhaps s/he would like to take a look at the graph, and educate his or herself :)