Prospects for Thursday, 10 January
- 10 Jan 08, 10:22 AM
Carol Rubra is today's programme producer - here is her early email to the team.
Good morning,
Going nuclear - John Hutton will make a statement today giving the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Susan will look at the detail of the announcement, whether the proposals provide sufficient financial incentive for the private sector to go ahead and what is going to happen to the waste.
There are a few other interesting discussion topics around today.
The world's cheapest car has been unveiled in India - a step forward for Indian middle classes but a step back in reducing global carbon emissions.
New figures on Iraqi deaths from violence
Labour donors and Peter Hain's failure to declare donations to his deputy leadership campaign.
MPs salaries - their pay rise will be announced today - should they accept?
Liberal Democrats are debating missile defence in the House of Lords.
And interest rates.
Please come to the meeting with your own ideas and thoughts on these.
Carol
Comments Post your comment
with the hundreds of thousands acres of roof surface why not invest the money in solar panels. Every house used to have a chimney why not a panel? Why are planners still turning them down for no good reason?
With arable crop prices going rocketing away to the sky why are we still subsidising farmers 4 billion a year to either grow nothing or even to take land out of production?
With no rational reasons to stop progress to a low carbon economy we need a 'dig for victory' mindset to change the psychological inertia in the system.
Complain about this post
Just saw the new Tata Nano car on the web, apparently it does 50miles to the gallon and has passed emissions tests too.
Is it really likely that MPs (or any one for that matter!) would say no to a pay rise?;-)
Complain about this post
Going Nukular:
It seems a new body has been established to take on the responsibility for cleaning up our nuclear legacy:
Comfortably funded by the public, and, it seems, comfortably separated from British Energy, formerly British Energy plc, formerly British Nuclear Fuels ltd., all of which carried the government's promise of funds for cleanup as assets on their balance sheets (guaranteed to grow above inflation)
The whole mess stinks!
If we were to commit a small fraction of the money spent chasing this dangerous and non-renewable, unsustainable pipe dream to sensible alternatives,....
But, as Eisenhower said in 1961,
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. ...
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
...
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. "
And that prescient view from a military man.
I was told on a visit to Windscale that we were lucky because "we got nuclear power cheap off the back of a military programme!"
NO THANKS!
ed
Complain about this post
csharp(#1)is quite right.
The 'dig for victory' mindset was a national characteristic and community-wide during the war. I was brought up with it, still remember it, and continue to grow my own veggies and bake bread, etc.
However, those in power decided that our national culture was in some way lacking and decided that we needed a massive influx of alien cultures and beliefs to improve what we had.
The resulting ghetto creation plus the benefits system have long since removed any chance of a cohesive social effort in the national interest.
I cannot resist once more suggesting the introduction of a form of compulsory national service, based more on community work than military training. That will instil discipline and loyalty to replace the present selfishness and anarchy, and provide labour to undertake many ecological projects.
If global warming is claimed to be the biggest danger now facing the world, then surely such emergency mobilisation is justified?
Complain about this post
Csharp "set a side" has now gone.Farmers are being asked to use land, for what will be anyone's guess?
Whereas solar panels etc.are useful they are small fry in the big picture. Those opposed to nuclear are either very rich or care little for the price we pay and its future availabilty, if the lights go out and Russia turns off the gas.
I am a great believer in tidal and wave energy but those "Greenies" who opposed coal and nuclear then moan about the destruction of the "lesser hopping frog" or other animal and plant life, when tidal barriers are mentioned like the Severn. These zealots will hold up such expansion, as well as nuclear, by various planning legislation.
A barrier across Morecambe Bay would not only provide cheap energy but a road to cut hours off a journey to West Cumbria opening that area up for develpoment. The NIMBY where it ends by then will be hopping mad.
The Kent coal power station would be a good example to see if carbon capture and storage would work. Camilla Cavendish in The Times today wrote an excellent article on the topic and ought be on Newsnight.
Once gas/oil runs out, unless we go nuclear, or fill the seas and countryside with windmills, the current increases in domestic power costs will seem like chicken feed, that is if there is any power left. It will be back to candles and wood and peat fires, over which the Greenies will still moan, scarring fields and denuding forests. You can't win with these people!
Complain about this post
Not to mention that recoverable resources of Uranium are estimated to be enough for from fifty to one hundred years AT PRESENT LEVELS OF USE.
Not exactly a way forward for the 10 billion folk expected by 2050, is it? I guess we'd better grab our "share" fast. And, of course, every bit of it will have to be imported, 'cause we ain't got any useful deposits.
We need to do three things:
We need to:
1. Use less energy per capita.
2. Reduce our percapita footprint.
3. Reduce and reverse population growth.
It's a three-legged stool; take away any one, it'll fall over.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this post