The disaster that is Britain's solar power "success&quo

[kenneal - lagger]

Let's stop the installation of all inefficient PV and wind turbines and get our lecky from clean nukes then.

Clean nukes which only pollute the atmosphere with CO2 from the thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete that are used in building them: that only pollute the atmosphere with small but cumulative amounts of insidious radiation: that only occasionally do a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or Fukushima and pollute not only their immediate surroundings but the whole environment for thousands of miles around for decades, if not longer. The pollution from Chernobyl still lurks only just below the surface in farmland in the north of Wales and Scotland just waiting for someone to disturb it and bring it into the food chain again. The full implications of the Fukushima event are only still unknown as the disaster is still unfolding under increasing secrecy on the part of the Japanese government while contaminated water spreads around only the Pacific. Fish are only being caught with radioactive contamination on the west coast of the US already.

Yes! Let's have nice reliable nukes instead!

[Little John]

Let's stop the installation of all inefficient PV and wind turbines and get our lecky from clean nukes then.

Clean nukes which only pollute the atmosphere with CO2 from the thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete that are used in building them: that only pollute the atmosphere with small but cumulative amounts of insidious radiation: that only occasionally do a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or Fukushima and pollute not only their immediate surroundings but the whole environment for thousands of miles around for decades, if not longer. The pollution from Chernobyl still lurks only just below the surface in farmland in the north of Wales and Scotland just waiting for someone to disturb it and bring it into the food chain again. The full implications of the Fukushima event are only still unknown as the disaster is still unfolding under increasing secrecy on the part of the Japanese government while contaminated water spreads around only the Pacific. Fish are only being caught with radioactive contamination on the west coast of the US already.

Yes! Let's have nice reliable nukes instead!

You know what the real problem is K. And it's not our energy supply. It's the reason why we need it.

[cubes]

Let's stop the installation of all inefficient PV and wind turbines and get our lecky from clean nukes then.

Clean nukes which only pollute the atmosphere with CO2 from the thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete that are used in building them: that only pollute the atmosphere with small but cumulative amounts of insidious radiation: that only occasionally do a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or Fukushima and pollute not only their immediate surroundings but the whole environment for thousands of miles around for decades, if not longer. The pollution from Chernobyl still lurks only just below the surface in farmland in the north of Wales and Scotland just waiting for someone to disturb it and bring it into the food chain again. The full implications of the Fukushima event are only still unknown as the disaster is still unfolding under increasing secrecy on the part of the Japanese government while contaminated water spreads around only the Pacific. Fish are only being caught with radioactive contamination on the west coast of the US already.

Yes! Let's have nice reliable nukes instead!

You forgot windscale! We can do nuclear accidents as well as the big boys!

It's rated at a similar level to TMI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... vent_Scale

The book "Normal Accidents" has a section on TMI. It's an interesting read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies is an award-winning 1984 book by Charles Perrow, which provides a detailed analysis of complex systems conducted from a social sciences perspective. It was the first to "propose a framework for characterizing complex technological systems such as air traffic, marine traffic, chemical plants, dams, and especially nuclear power plants according to their riskiness". Perrow says that multiple and unexpected failures are built into society's complex systems. They are unavoidable and cannot be designed around.

[woodburner]

Let's stop the installation of all inefficient PV and wind turbines and get our lecky from clean nukes then.

Clean nukes which only pollute the atmosphere with CO2 from the thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete that are used in building them: that only pollute the atmosphere with small but cumulative amounts of insidious radiation: that only occasionally do a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or Fukushima and pollute not only their immediate surroundings but the whole environment for thousands of miles around for decades, if not longer. The pollution from Chernobyl still lurks only just below the surface in farmland in the north of Wales and Scotland just waiting for someone to disturb it and bring it into the food chain again. The full implications of the Fukushima event are only still unknown as the disaster is still unfolding under increasing secrecy on the part of the Japanese government while contaminated water spreads around only the Pacific. Fish are only being caught with radioactive contamination on the west coast of the US already.

Yes! Let's have nice reliable nukes instead!

Don't try to justify dirty PV supplies by bring up nukes. It is a stupid argument and I had thought better of you. I may as well bring a dog round to shit on your bedroom carpet and justify it by saying I know someone who would bring one round to shit in your bed.

Do try to maintain some small connection to the subject under discussion. This prime ministers question time approach to discussions on PS is not helpful.

[biffvernon]

All discussion or relative energy source costs is stupid if it ignores externalised environmental impact, and, in the case on non-renewable sources, does not allow future generations to be represented in the market place.

[cubes]

Future generations can't, won't and never will have a say in current decision making - they don't exist yet so we can't know their views etc. Trotting out arguments that includes it tend to mean you're already on shaky ground.

[biffvernon]

Future generations can't, won't and never will have a say in current decision making - they don't exist yet so we can't know their views etc. Trotting out arguments that includes it tend to mean you're already on shaky ground.

Never say never. Future generations may not be able to have a direct and personal say, but their likely views can be taken into account.

The thinking is well developed and is on surprisingly firm ground. Start with:

Guardians of the Future by Rupert Read

A Green House report by Rupert Read, prepared as a discussion paper for the Alliance for Future Generations, whose members have agreed to work "to ensure that long-termism and the needs of future generations are brought into the heart of UK democracy and policy processes, in order to safeguard the earth and secure intergenerational justice." The proposal in this report is intended to do precisely that, through a modification to the architecture of Parliament.

Download the report here: http://www.greenhousethinktank.org/file ... _final.pdf It really is a very important document. It was presented in Parliament earlier this year and builds on the work in Hungary where there is already an office of Ombudsman for Future Generations.

The principle is that a commission, independent of the executive, scrutinises all new legislation and government policy for it's impact on future generations and has a veto that can be applied if it considers that future generations will be adversely affected. The idea is strongly supported by Caroline Lucas MP.

[cubes]

But they're going to use their values and not future ones. Our values aren't the same as those who were in charge when we were children.

I've nothing against long termism (we certainly need more of it), but using the future generations argument is mainly appealing to emotions, which we have far too much of already.

[clv101]

Some things are pretty clear though, the liability associated with nuclear waste for example. Had the previous generation given a little more thought to nuclear decommission, we might not be facing with the £70bn+ clean up bill from the old fleet.

[biffvernon]

But they're going to use their values and not future ones. Our values aren't the same as those who were in charge when we were children.

Yeah, it's easy to find limitations but, as they say, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I reckon there are some values that it's safe to say are pretty time independent, such as the value of a life-supporting planet, at least until we develop an extreme techie society that can live in an entirely artificial environment. Ensuring that we don't trigger runaway global warming is the prime example of taking future generations' values into account. I mean, what do I care if the temperature rises by six degrees in the second half of this century?

[woodburner]

Some things are pretty clear though, the liability associated with nuclear waste for example. Had the previous generation given a little more thought to nuclear decommission, we might not be facing with the £70bn+ clean up bill from the old fleet.

There is the liability for the pollution caused by solar panel manufacture too.

[clv101]

Some things are pretty clear though, the liability associated with nuclear waste for example. Had the previous generation given a little more thought to nuclear decommission, we might not be facing with the £70bn+ clean up bill from the old fleet.

There is the liability for the pollution caused by solar panel manufacture too.

Indeed, there's future liabilities for most things we do - hence why it's a good idea to specifically take this into account.

[woodburner]

Unfortunately with "renewables" the future liabilities are glossed over or even dismissed in the same way the liabilities of nuclear were in the early (and not so early) days.