Excepting that Wind and Solar power systems presently
in utilised depend for their entire physical existence
upon significant raw material/Resource usage,
production and transport methods, and the oil etc
industries, thus simultaneously supporting certain
industries and adding to them, and looking not very
appealing, and keeping people in a
detached-from-Nature mindset which keeps people at
machines/gadgets etc, and affecting local ecostystems,
and, in the numbers required to provide sufficient
energy, the Resource usage/Eyesore etc factors/Costs
per person are significant.
As always, best position to take = Simplicity =
Reduced Demand = Makes people's lives and all of the
Environment Happier, Healthier, and better in all REAL
respects simultaneously, and costs the least !!
As said previously, there's only ONE correct way. All
others, well meaning or not, have implications,
Consequences, whether thought about, even known about,
cared about, or not. Supporting widely-held beliefs is
not always the correct answer - there's much that is
"bigger" than us Humans ! (Just take the Time of year
and its significance as one example !)
What goes around comes around !!
Best Wishes Everyone and Jim particularly !,
--- SowNet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> PRESS RELEASE/PRESS RELEASE/PRESS RELEASE
> SAVE OUR WORLD has just posted the following
> statement on both our web-sites on an updated About
> Us page, keyed to both Home pages. We believe it
> important that environmental organisations,
> generally, declare their positions on this topic.
> Happy, Happy Christmas and lets wish ourselves all a
> Fantastic New Year.
> Cheers from Jim Scott, chairperson.
> POSITION STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR ENERGY
> Nuclear power is being promoted as the solution to
> the impending energy crisis. However, we do not
> believe this is the case. Government and big
> corporations appear to be pursuing their own agenda,
> and using misleading methods to advance their
> position. We therefore have carried out our research
> among independent sources. We have, as a result,
> arrived at a number of reasons why nuclear is an
> undesirable alternative to other forms of energy for
> averting dangerous climate change.
> Firstly, nuclear energy is expensive and uneconomic.
> Even the World Nuclear Organisation has admitted
> that the overall cost of nuclear is up to four times
> more costly than wind-power! Secondly, the planned
> nuclear developments will not be available in time
> to meet the government's targets. In fact, the most
> highly recommended variety of reactor to be built
> (Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000) would take a
> minimum of twenty years to construct.
> Nuclear energy is being claimed by the UK government
> to be a carbon-free alternative, but significant
> carbon-producing processes are involved in the
> mining of uranium, in the construction of power
> stations and in the disposal of waste. Energy
> requirements for these processes depend on
> high-grade uranium ore, which is expected to be
> exhausted within 50 years. Lower quality uranium
> then available will lead to energy prices soaring in
> the future.
> With nuclear energy, there is always a risk of
> catastrophe, both at the level of management and on
> account of the technology involved. This can have a
> very serious and far-reaching effects. No really
> effective technological or other means have yet been
> found to deal with nuclear waste, including burying
> it underground. Evidence has been produced of
> Leukemia rates around power stations up to twenty
> times the normal level. Radiation is considered
> still to be a hazard to farming in North Wales
> today, twenty years after the Chernobyl disaster!
> There are also the risks of terrorist attacks on
> power plants, and of theft of radioactive materials
> by terrorist organisations.
> At present, nuclear power contributes 22% of UK's
> electricity, or 8% of the total energy demand. It
> cannot resolve the energy crisis facing our country,
> as electricity is only one variety of the energy we
> so rapidly consume. We are unpersuaded that nuclear
> energy is essential, provided we reduce our energy
> demands substantially. This is in any case required
> on account of our utilising the resources, on
> average, of three planet Earths! Much of the
> political case being made for nuclear energy rests
> on the assumption that an exponential rise in
> economic growth is both desirable and unstoppable.
> Pseudoscientific arguments are being utilised in its
> favour, and the case for reducing energy demand
> If one third of Britain's electricity consumers
> simply installed wind systems or solar panels, this,
> it is reliably claimed, would match the electricity
> capacity of the UK's nuclear program. To tackle the
> energy crisis safely and ethically, decentralisation
> of power production makes eminent sense. This would
> greatly reduce energy waste, and be more flexible
> and cost-effective, as well as providing the most
> effective, democratically managed means of meeting
> the energy needs of remote villages in developing
> [prepared by Jude Laing with Jim Scott for About Us
> pages on both web-sites: 21/12/2005]
> Visit: http//:www.save-our-world.net (global) and
> Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com