nuclear power no thanks

Just been reading in yesterday's Guardian. India are now going the way of Thorium reactors instead of (plutonium creating) uranium reactors.
So, that's China, USA and India going Thorium.
There is lots of Thorium whereas unranium is hard to get at and will run out.
Thorium is far less dangerous and does not give off CO2 when mined (as does unranium).
Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium for weapons; and there is less nuclear waste with much shorter half life.
Some sorts do not need water cooling.

So, are we going to go ahead with more unranium ones in the country and let the rest of the world develope the Thorium future - then have to buy the technology off them????

in haste, also cross, so spelling may be wiorse than usual....

I don't look at all the threads...but perhaps its just that I don't notice them?

Sorry, that should have been an answer to Carboncareful - you mentioned Faye at the start and I copied that.

Faye Which threads are you following that you have not come across any men? Some of us mention our menfolk often, with love and/or derision. I don't know what I would do without mine. There are also men who actually post too.

Faye, OMG you've mentioned M E N. Don't think I've come across those on gransnet yet! Was beginning to think none of you had husbands, partners, toy-boys? Whatever?

Baggy - I'll be back on that........but yes I know we have areas of agreement and that can only be good.

Off now, husband (!!!!) starving.........(he's cooking it but requires me to attend the eating part)

Faye: pay people to pollute, whatever next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi carbon

" Baggy, I've just been thinking: if you don't believe in climate change and CO2 causing greenhouse effect etc. why are you advocating nuclear l power as a way to combat it? There's a logical inconsistancy somewhere in your argument. "

I'm good at logical thinking, carbon. i hope this explanation makes my 'stance' clearer for you.

I do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't believe it's a main driver of climate change. I think climate change is far more complicated than that. I think that this is the only difference between you and me.

If one believes that CO2 is a main driver of climate change (as you apparently do), it makes perfectly logical sense to favour nuclear power as an alternative (some important 'greens' have argued this too) because nuclear power does not produce CO2.

Actually, I'd rather we didn't have to use nuclear power, at least until the waste issue isn't an issue but, being pragmatic, I accept that it looks as if we'll have to. The world is power hungry and, much as we may 'regret' that, there's no getting away from it.

Ideally, we'd get all power from renewable sources (you see, you and I aren't so very different ideologically) but at the moment that isn't practical. We need to keep working on it. Meanwhile ....

Carboncareful I believe the carbon tax starts next yearl, but there is a lot of opposition. From what I believe under the Federal Labor government's plan the top 500 polluters will be taxed with some of the proceeds paid to people on a low income, and for research and development on Renewables etc etc. Also the tax threshold will be raised.
Under the oppositions plans (Liberals in Australia equal Tories in Britain) the biggest polluters would be given money to cut their pollution which would be paid by the government. Which really means the people of Australia would be paying for big businesses to reduce their pollution.

I really will get to grips with this issue eventually, but it seems the more I investigate, the more confused I become.

Great to see you are back Old Greymare, I am sorry to read that you are depressed, I hope we can all cheer you up! We all got sick of the arguing and bickering so we packed up and went over to health to try and discover how to get rid of arthritis naturally. Some of us have been lurking around the female urinals forum . Also lots of us have been discussing the elderly in hospital. We have even decided that we are all off on a virtual camping caravan holiday that bikergran is organising. We had even discussed whether we are taking any men along too, but I think we squelched that idea because they are always too much trouble. I know its not quite the same without baggy in this forum but never mind you can peacefully chat to her somewhere else.

Sorry about the typing error.... bu= by! Told you I was tired!!!

Just posted a message and it has disappeared...... I'll try again!
Sorry Faye AND Carboncareful, as I said: too tired and depressed to string any more words together...
Oh! Baggythecrust, you don't believe in climate change either! Even the cynics in the U.S.A.have agreed that it IS happening!
The scientific consensus on climate change is ' that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused bu human activities' and it 'is largely irreversible'....... United States National Research Council.
I'm off to find more cheerful messages.....

Baggy, I've just been thinking: if you don't believe in climate change and CO2 causing greenhouse effect etc. why are you advocating nuclear l power as a way to combat it? There's a logical inconsistancy somewhere in your argument.

Faye, am I right in thinking Australia now imposes a carbon tax? On industry?

Oldgreymare - wasn't me who posted the Hot Rocks, it was Faye. I, too think its great - good on yer Faye! Hope they leave the coal where it is for a number of reasons...............dare I explain reason?

Back from 'looking after' the Grandchildren, energy levels depleted!Carboncareful.....love the 'hot rocks'!
Baggythecrust....I am deadly serious in my concern for the future of our planet which is why I think we should be researching all possibilities ( Well- done the antipodeans and FlicketyB's local sewage farm!) for providing energy to an energy hungry world while minimising the pollution ( of any sort) that may be a consequence.
Sorry folks, too tired and depressed to string any more words together....

Off to Norfolk soon but have not given up on the discussion................

Green Nuclear - People who are interested in this thread have probably read about Hot Rocks www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-get-hot-rocks-off-over-green-nuclear-power/2007/04/11/1175971183212.html

Biofuels may not be the answer but biomass is certainly part of it. My local sewage farm has a pilot plant which produces methane from sewage and feeds it in to the mains gas system. What is left is a clean product that can be used as a fertiliser. I read recently of a group of farmers generating methane from slurry (animal sewage) and using the gas directly to fuel heating boilers and also to generate power for use on-site and to sell into the grid. Once again they are left with a fertiliser that they use on the land and which replaces buying fertiliser made from petrochemicals. In principal this is a system that could be extended over time to all sewage systems and all farm slurry.

In this country whenever waste incinerators are suggested there are horror stories about pollution but in Denmark, that most environmental of countries, there are waste burning combined heat and power (CHP) plants in many towns and the Danes welcome them because of the cleaness of their emissions. My county plans to build an incinerator but has no plans to generate either heat or power from it. An alternative site was rejected which was close to an area where a large development of houses is planned that could have been heated from such a CHP plant. However there were no plans to generate heat or power from that incinerator either. Most coal-fired power stations can also handle about 10% of their fuel as biomass, mainly byproducts of other industries like forestry and agriculture.

I do not think it is a question of us giving up our cars and gadgets it is about using fuel sensibly, buying fuel efficient cars, thinking how we use them, using AAA appliances, thoroughly insulating our houses and living fuel efficient lifestyles within them - and not objecting every time plans are announced to build power generating plant anywhere near us. Of course there will be valid objections to some plants but currently everything seems to be objected to and no practical alternatives are ever suggested.

BBC biased! Yeah - wot we reely wont it Murdoch running it....................... No, sorry, I meant Rebekah!

Floodplains are supposed to flood. That's why its not a good idea to build on them. If you build on a floodplain - i.e. drain it - then the result is that more water goes into the sea.
I could go on but wouldn't want to look as if I am lecturing!!!

OK, oldgrey, I get the (rather flat ) joke from 5/7. Trouble is, there are plenty of people who blame every floodplain flood (not to mention every hurricane, every snowstorm, every heat wave, every cold spell, etc) on global warming. It tends to stick in the gullet after a while, irony or no irony.

Serious? Well, yeah, when governments spend billions on a problem that doesn't exist in spite of there being more pressing problems that we could deal with that would give suffering people immediate relief. Serious subject after all. Being serious about serious things is nothing to be ashamed of.

Oh, and I seriously think the BBC is seriously biased.

Baggy.... we can all cite experts, to back our own deeply held convictions, 'til the cows ( possibly affected by radiation of some sort) come home. You and I must simply agree to differ! But, I really don't think you can dismiss BBC reporting so lightly...... after all BBC journalists are not employed by Rupert Murdoch ( typed with a wry smile!)
Anyway I'm off for a bit.....
Regards...... Oldgreymare.

I refer to my post of the 5th July!

Don't you recognise irony, Baggy? My, you are serious!!!