Moonbat & Porridge on Newsnight.
Discussion
That was fun wasn't it?
Moonbat now has no objections to nuclear, and Porridge saying that only a small number of environmentalists were anti nuclear anyway. That is some world class back-pedalling!
Loved the comment from the former energy minister about "They should get the gold medal for slow learners"
Moonbat now has no objections to nuclear, and Porridge saying that only a small number of environmentalists were anti nuclear anyway. That is some world class back-pedalling!
Loved the comment from the former energy minister about "They should get the gold medal for slow learners"
Some classic statement in this diatribe in 2006 about how nuclear still isn't the right technology.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11/thanks-...
"There’s little doubt that extracting these ores kills. Last month New Scientist reported that the 400,000 uranium miners working in East Germany between 1946 and 1990 were exposed to an increased risk of lung cancer of around 10%(10). But it didn’t say whether this is the case elsewhere, or how it compares to other kinds of mining. One tonne of uranium, according to government figures, produces as much energy as 75,000 tonnes of coal(11). It is impossible to believe that coal has the lesser impact."
So he's never heard of fast breeeder reactors that create their own fuel?
"I am forced to admit that an accident like Chernobyl’s could not take place in a new nuclear power station. Secondary containment of the reactor core and new safety systems make a total meltdown impossible(12). Nor do I believe that new reactors would present a useful target for terrorists. It would not be difficult to make the containment buildings strong enough to resist an impact with an airliner."
Erm, only some very, very early reactors would allow criticality to be uncontrolled. Chernobyl was such a design and that was after they explicitly switched off every single safety measure. A Chernobyl accident in the West was always impossible after about 1965 purely due to the design of the reactor.
"It has also become clear that we will never rid the world of nuclear weapons if we do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every state which has sought to develop a weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by manipulating its nuclear power programme. We cannot deny other states the opportunity to use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves."
It is possible to use nuclear power that cannot create fissile weapons-grade material as a by-product. Pressurised Heavy Water and Light Water reactors do not produce fissile weapons-grade plutonium.
and this in 2004....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/sep/07/...
"A new generation of nuclear power stations can be built only with government money: the private sector won't carry the risk. It would take at least 10 years, and it would cost tens or possibly hundreds of billions of pounds. The government will not spend this money twice: it will either invest massively in nuclear generation or invest massively in energy-saving and alternative power. The Rocky Mountain Institute has shown that you can save seven times as much carbon through electricity efficiencies as you can by investing in nuclear. And you kill no one. There'd be plenty of change too for a research programme to develop cheaper solar cells, with which, in time, almost every building in Britain could be roofed."
Oh really, this is why EDF wants to build nuclear reactors in the UK and only until recently sought to acquire British Energy.
The man is a f
king idiot and they give him precious airtime to spout vacuous bks about something he knows so little about, your average man on the bus has an equally valid view. It's just they are a lot less precious about it than that Moonbat.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11/thanks-...
"There’s little doubt that extracting these ores kills. Last month New Scientist reported that the 400,000 uranium miners working in East Germany between 1946 and 1990 were exposed to an increased risk of lung cancer of around 10%(10). But it didn’t say whether this is the case elsewhere, or how it compares to other kinds of mining. One tonne of uranium, according to government figures, produces as much energy as 75,000 tonnes of coal(11). It is impossible to believe that coal has the lesser impact."
So he's never heard of fast breeeder reactors that create their own fuel?
"I am forced to admit that an accident like Chernobyl’s could not take place in a new nuclear power station. Secondary containment of the reactor core and new safety systems make a total meltdown impossible(12). Nor do I believe that new reactors would present a useful target for terrorists. It would not be difficult to make the containment buildings strong enough to resist an impact with an airliner."
Erm, only some very, very early reactors would allow criticality to be uncontrolled. Chernobyl was such a design and that was after they explicitly switched off every single safety measure. A Chernobyl accident in the West was always impossible after about 1965 purely due to the design of the reactor.
"It has also become clear that we will never rid the world of nuclear weapons if we do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every state which has sought to develop a weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by manipulating its nuclear power programme. We cannot deny other states the opportunity to use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves."
It is possible to use nuclear power that cannot create fissile weapons-grade material as a by-product. Pressurised Heavy Water and Light Water reactors do not produce fissile weapons-grade plutonium.
and this in 2004....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/sep/07/...
"A new generation of nuclear power stations can be built only with government money: the private sector won't carry the risk. It would take at least 10 years, and it would cost tens or possibly hundreds of billions of pounds. The government will not spend this money twice: it will either invest massively in nuclear generation or invest massively in energy-saving and alternative power. The Rocky Mountain Institute has shown that you can save seven times as much carbon through electricity efficiencies as you can by investing in nuclear. And you kill no one. There'd be plenty of change too for a research programme to develop cheaper solar cells, with which, in time, almost every building in Britain could be roofed."
Oh really, this is why EDF wants to build nuclear reactors in the UK and only until recently sought to acquire British Energy.
The man is a f
king idiot and they give him precious airtime to spout vacuous bks about something he knows so little about, your average man on the bus has an equally valid view. It's just they are a lot less precious about it than that Moonbat.Why do they keep asking MongBigots opinion on anything?
I dont even recall him being qualified to comment, the cabbage.
Last thing i seem to hear him flapping his gums about was cars and "how i hate them" then in the next breath the bubble eyed hypocrites gone and bought one cos his bus dosent run to his schedule.
Confused Dot com he definitely is.
Shoot him for the sake of humanity!
I dont even recall him being qualified to comment, the cabbage.
Last thing i seem to hear him flapping his gums about was cars and "how i hate them" then in the next breath the bubble eyed hypocrites gone and bought one cos his bus dosent run to his schedule.
Confused Dot com he definitely is.
Shoot him for the sake of humanity!
Deltaf01 said:
cars and "how i hate them" then in the next breath the bubble eyed hypocrites gone and bought one cos his bus dosent run to his schedule.
Apparently he's gone and bought a fairly old Renault Clio 1.2, a small and reasonably economical hatchback that you can run on a budget. Just the sort of thing they are now encouraging the government to pay a scrapping subsidy for. 215cu said:
"There’s little doubt that extracting these ores kills. Last month New Scientist reported that the 400,000 uranium miners working in East Germany between 1946 and 1990 were exposed to an increased risk of lung cancer of around 10%(10). But it didn’t say whether this is the case elsewhere, or how it compares to other kinds of mining.
That piece of information by itself is so useless, a credible man's pride alone would forbid him from citing it as evidence of any damn thing.There are so many variables and its such a large window of time, not to mention improvements in PPE and mining techniques, plus what material they were mining and how etc etc.
The man's an out and out oxygen thief.
Balmoral Green said:
Deltaf01 said:
cars and "how i hate them" then in the next breath the bubble eyed hypocrites gone and bought one cos his bus dosent run to his schedule.
Apparently he's gone and bought a fairly old Renault Clio 1.2, a small and reasonably economical hatchback that you can run on a budget. Just the sort of thing they are now encouraging the government to pay a scrapping subsidy for. He apparently never thought to enquire as to the availability of public transport before he moved. The silly t
t.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff