About The Economy? (FALC)

[BiggestNizzy]

As for Nuclear, went to school with a bloke who worked for British Nuclear, he said they needed to start thinking about building them back in the early 90's just like the french. that was almost 20 years ago.

Nuclear is the only answer.Iif any greens disagree they have to come up with a viable answer that we can put into place now, first.

[kenny]

Spot on Graeme, we will need electricity for everything in the future, not building nuclear plants is suicide and sadly the decision will be unpopular so no-one will make it.

The commitment, due to construction and commissioning time, should have been made a decade ago.

Unfortunately the shouty ecofascists have convinced enough stupid people that their children will glow in the dark and all kittens will have 3 eyes and 6 legs if we build nuclear plants that any government right or left is terrified of just doing it. Coupled with increased pandering to the so-called 'environmentalists' we are pissing, quite literally, into the wind with the ridiculous windymills that are no more evironmentally friendly than nuclear.

[robin]

Correct. Until somebody can reproduce photosynthesis in a sustainable* way carbohydrate based fuels don't scale.

CO2 is a massive red herring in all this. Don't confuse the economic importance of being energy-self-sufficient with the environmental importance of producing less CO2+other sh*t we don't like to breathe. If (when ) it becomes economic for us to dig out whatever coal and oil are left in various country beauty spots, we'll be getting on with it, that's for sure. Maybe we'll have a levy on the extracted fuel so that we can put the grass back afterwards, and hope that the animals managed to survive somewhere else in the meanwhile. Or maybe not. We'll use the coil+oil to power our electricity generation and possibly to produce some fuel for transport too (depends on your view of the various energy storage possibilities).

Cheers,
Robin

*(by that I mean the industrial process can run for 30 years without tearing the plant down every five minutes; I don't give a fcuk whether it produces 2x more CO2 than it consumes)

[Dominic]

I am all for more nuclear power stations for the above mentioned reasons. However, I know someone who is a fan of windmills (and hugging trees I think). Whenever I discuss this with him (which largely involves me winding him up, and slating any of his eco nonsense), he bangs on about the disposal of nuclear waste. Is there any true effective way of disposing of the waste? Bury it deep underground?

[Shug]

Existing Nuclear tech is fission technology. The really interesting stuff is Nuclear fusion, whilst it does produce some radioactive material, it's miniscule in amount (and relatively short lived) compared to fission tech. Most of what's produced as waste is hydrogen. Still experimental, really, but if we actually put some funding behind it, it's the future of energy production.

Short term, current fission reactors are so much more sophisticated than old tech like Chernobyl that they emit a fraction of the waste material - but the waste is still produced. Deep underground is currently the best way to dispose (and while they are radioactive for long, long times, it's not geological time in most cases, so will eventually be safe)

[BiggestNizzy]

Existing Nuclear tech is fission technology. The really interesting stuff is Nuclear fusion, whilst it does produce some radioactive material, it's miniscule in amount (and relatively short lived) compared to fission tech. Most of what's produced as waste is hydrogen. Still experimental, really, but if we actually put some funding behind it, it's the future of energy production.

Seen some snaps a while back where a magnet had failed in the taurus and it had vaporised a chunk of it.

[campbell]

I propose a revolution, Graeme can be in charge. Anyone fancy coming to London tomorrow and we'll kick it off???

Er, the Egyptians are trying that one just now. Not going so well I hear.

[campbell]

Maybe we'll have a levy on the extracted fuel so that we can put the grass back afterwards, and hope that the animals managed to survive somewhere else in the meanwhile.

Apparently the motorways have seen the return of flora and fauna which the original (and presumably brave, seriously minority) green lobby protested would be wiped out as a result. So I'm all for a bit of returfing once the nectar has been dug out.

On all the other stuff, I now sort of despair. I'm just going to try to spend less than I earn (important distinction, agreed), invest wisely, give my kids the love, attention and direction they deserve, dig a large bunker and hope for the best. I'll probably pay my taxes along the way too

[graeme]

CO2 is a massive red herring in all this.

Correct, in terms of climate change CO2 is not really the real problem (renewability is), but in terms of politics it is very relevant. Carbon credits, carbon footprints, climate change summits which talk about little else... Never underestimate the unmovable stupidity of politicians in large numbers.

If you want any .gov to take an energy plan seriously enough to invest with 15 years of foresight, it needs to be damned-near carbon neutral. Yes, it's technically irrelevant to our climate problems, and completely irrelevant to our energy problems, but you can either try to change perception and convince the G8, or just go with a plan for renewable energy that happens to be CO2-friendly anyway.

Don't confuse the economic importance of being energy-self-sufficient with the environmental importance of producing less CO2+other sh*t we don't like to breathe. If (when ) it becomes economic for us to dig out whatever coal and oil are left in various country beauty spots, we'll be getting on with it, that's for sure.

Maybe we'll have a levy on the extracted fuel so that we can put the grass back afterwards, and hope that the animals managed to survive somewhere else in the meanwhile. Or maybe not. We'll use the coil+oil to power our electricity generation and possibly to produce some fuel for transport too (depends on your view of the various energy storage possibilities).

That's ass-backwards reasoning. It will only become economic to extract fossil fuels from beauty spots because the economic cost of having no fuel at all is so mind-bendingly high. By the same reasoning, one day it will become economic to burn fat kids. The argument fails to take into account that alternative fuels (with lower manufacturing, environmental and moral costs) could be made to be readily available in the future.

Of course, that availability of alternative fuels requires long-term investment and 15 year foresight from governments, so you're probably right.

[mckeann]

one day it will become economic to burn fat kids.

I agree

[campbell]

What about noisy ones. Apparently some oaf wants to ban kids from airline flights. Oops, Thread Drift Alert.

Let's get back to the economy, stupid.

[pete]

I am all for more nuclear power stations for the above mentioned reasons. However, I know someone who is a fan of windmills (and hugging trees I think). Whenever I discuss this with him (which largely involves me winding him up, and slating any of his eco nonsense), he bangs on about the disposal of nuclear waste. Is there any true effective way of disposing of the waste? Bury it deep underground?

Just an evidence based answer. If you believe that we are producing too much carbon, which your friend does, then which is better: carbon or nuclear waste?

Your friend knows what damage our enthusiastic production of Carbon is doing. Your friend will also know that the very small amount of radioactive waste we produce has, so far, largely remained contained.

And building reactors satisfies our energy needs, and may have massively positive effects on the economy. Or may send the economy into a Irish style tailspin.

[robin]

Just an evidence based answer. If you believe that we are producing too much carbon, which your friend does, then which is better: carbon or nuclear waste?

Nit: CO2 is not the same as Carbon; I'm sure you know this, but so many people are so stupid that if we don't educate the media to say Carbon Dioxide instead of Carbon, soon we will not be allowed Carbon, whereas the real problem is CO2. Not that CO2 is such a problem ...

In general terms, it's very very hard to persuade people to change their behaviour. (Personal) economics is the most powerful method of persuading people to change their behaviour. Altruism doesn't have much, if any, impact on people's behaviour. So until it becomes more economic for me to have a usable electric car than keep filling up the cars I have with petrol/diesel, that's what I will do. Likewise, China isn't going to stop burning coal just because we say that it's going to be a bit rough on low-lying countries if they don't stop.

There is a perfectly good way of mitigating the impacts on the weather of rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; Earth has survived with much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, so nothing catastrophic is likely to happen as a result of the CO2 concentration per se (global warming aside). Even though this method is cheap (a few £100million, tops) and practical and could be done unilaterally by any moderately wealthy country, whilst having global impact, it won't happen because the eco-fascists won't allow rational discussion and believe that only an altruistic solution will do (i.e. one where we all decide to embrace the environment and stop burning nasty fossil fuels). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face ... twats.

[Heavily paraphrased from Superfreakonomics]

Cheers,
Robin

[BiggestNizzy]

Earth has survived with much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, so nothing catastrophic is likely to happen as a result of the CO2 concentration per se (global warming aside).
[Heavily paraphrased from Superfreakonomics]

Cheers,
Robin

We don't have to save the world. The world is big enough to look after itself. What we have to be concerned about is whether or not the world we live in will be capable of sustaining us in it.
Douglous Adams at The University of California, (May 2001).

If we get global warming and see levels rise Kilmarnock gets a beach and there is no more Ayr United win - win

[BigD]

And a story today about food prices......

World food prices surged to an all time high last month on the back of extreme weather conditions and unrest in the Middle East.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Food Price index rose for the seventh month in a row. It now stands at 231, well above the last record high of 224.1 in June 2008 and the highest since records began in 1990.

And there was a stark warning from the FAO that these high prices will remain high for some time.

Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist at the organisation, said: 'The new figures clearly show that the upward pressure on world food prices is not abating. These high prices are likely to persist in the months to come.'

Meanwhile, in an interview with Reuters, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said: 'We are going to be facing a broader trend of increasing commodity prices, including food commodity prices.'

There are a number of factors across the globe which are exacerbating the situation.

Capital Economics' Julian Jessop fears the uprising in Egypt could have severe implications for food prices after the unrest helped push oil above the $100 mark.

Jessop said: 'Extreme weather conditions last year damaged crops in many parts of the world, notably harvests of wheat and sugar. The resulting increases in food prices have contributed to social unrest in many countries, including in Egypt. Governments in the rest of the Middle East and elsewhere, fearful of contagion, are responding by restricting exports of agricultural commodities and/or increasing imports to add to precautionary stockpiles.’

A massive snowstorm in the United States and floods in Australia are among the forces of nature which could push prices up further.

I see this as the biggest problem with Ethanol/Methanol. If we don't have enough food for us how can we use it for fuel too?