The big society just got smaller

[Bruce Wayne]

Nope, that's what I believe. Lets be honest here, that nuclear plant was hit by one of the biggest earthquakes this century. You might like to check this out. It shows the number of deaths per year per kilowatt hour produced by various energy sources.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

With a nice graphic here

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/dat...976/comments/2e70ae944fb511e0ae0c000255111976

So basically, for every one person that has died from nuclear in the past century, 4,000 have died from coal. In China alone around 6,000 people die each year directly from coal mining, not to mention the many more that die from the pollution it causes.

 

[chicoazul]

Bruce smacks down any opposition there like.

 

[atrottel]

So because xx million people die in transport accidents worldwide and only x million get shot, we shouldn't do anything about controlling the use of weapons? *

I see bits of straw poking out of the sides of that argument, Mr Wayne. Thus, since spinny things on hills haven't killed anything except for birds (that are anyway too noisy in the morning for my liking), we should all have one in our gardens.



* high fives TX Bill

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Of course we should look to make nuclear as safe as possible, I'm just saying a sense of perspective would be good, as relative to other power sources, nuclear is really very safe indeed.

 

[sirblue57]

I would like to believe this will actually make a lot of people already in the UK who don't have jobs actually get a job.

In the past I'd probably disagree with it but I really need a job and I can't get one and it makes more sense to get current UK residents to get the qualifications to get certain jobs than resorting to migrants.

I think a cap on immigration should be put on every largely populated country, really.

as someone who lived(?) through the last tory regime,i found having a job was harder. as the tory policy was insecure jobs=less wages, this is something they dont put into manifesto but, and think of "big society), low pay is their mantra. as is targeting "benefit cheats" BEFORE tax avoidance by individuals and companies. now think WHY? then think WHO? you may just understand why people who have dealt with tory governments, distrust them.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

 

[sirblue57]

the only people who trust the tories are, rich,greedy, corrupt or stupid, the working man has little to gain froma conservitive philosophy. look at what thatcher "achieved" the ultimate in second hand car dealers, look at her legacy, then tell me it worked.
this woman did the greatest con trick of all time she;
took assets that the public owned, pumped millions into them, then sold them back to the public, no wonder they treat us with contempt.
sold council houses at ridiculous prices, then stopped councils building more, fuelling a rise in house prices which leaves many people unable to purchase their own homes,without taking mortgages of more than four times their annual income or more.

so if i seem to have a "chip" about them, its because i remember what they have done in the past, and fear what they may do in the future.

 

[zed]

Nope, that's what I believe. Lets be honest here, that nuclear plant was hit by one of the biggest earthquakes this century. You might like to check this out. It shows the number of deaths per year per kilowatt hour produced by various energy sources.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

With a nice graphic here

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/dat...976/comments/2e70ae944fb511e0ae0c000255111976

So basically, for every one person that has died from nuclear in the past century, 4,000 have died from coal. In China alone around 6,000 people die each year directly from coal mining, not to mention the many more that die from the pollution it causes.

thanks Bruce, your opinion previously that `big companies love us and safe guard our communities` has hit a snag there, all those deaths in the coal industry are directly a result of getting the stuff out the ground, so i`m thinking the safety of the workers aint paramount in the companies thoughts.also, these mining deaths dont spread around the world as in `bong,another 64 miners died today ih huang chung. bong, due to the continuing mining tradegies in china - farmers in cumbria are noticing deformities in lambs bong etc etc

 

[Bruce Wayne]

thanks Bruce, your opinion previously that `big companies love us and safe guard our communities` has hit a snag there, all those deaths in the coal industry are directly a result of getting the stuff out the ground, so i`m thinking the safety of the workers aint paramount in the companies thoughts.also, these mining deaths dont spread around the world as in `bong,another 64 miners died today ih huang chung. bong, due to the continuing mining tradegies in china - farmers in cumbria are noticing deformities in lambs bong etc etc

To be fair though I don't think the Chinese are renowned for worker safety. I've no idea off the top of my head whether the Chinese mines are state owned or privately owned. No idea also (without searching) the proportion of global coal deaths are Chinese. I know they're the biggest producer. Maybe Bill can fill us in on how things go in West Virginia, which I believe is the biggest coal producing state in the US.

Overlooking that though the environmental impact of the stuff aint so nice, both from the mining of it in the first place to the emissions that result from the process.

 

[sirblue57]

To be fair though I don't think the Chinese are renowned for worker safety. I've no idea off the top of my head whether the Chinese mines are state owned or privately owned. No idea also (without searching) the proportion of global coal deaths are Chinese. I know they're the biggest producer. Maybe Bill can fill us in on how things go in West Virginia, which I believe is the biggest coal producing state in the US.

Overlooking that though the environmental impact of the stuff aint so nice, both from the mining of it in the first place to the emissions that result from the process.

so who do you think fought for safety issues? the mine owners, OR, the workers, via union membership?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It wasn't widely reported at the time but in the mid 80's Thatcher was whiskers away from winning a Nobel prize for her role in removing so many from the dangerous profession of mining.

 

[zed]

To be fair though I don't think the Chinese are renowned for worker safety. I've no idea off the top of my head whether the Chinese mines are state owned or privately owned. No idea also (without searching) the proportion of global coal deaths are Chinese. I know they're the biggest producer. Maybe Bill can fill us in on how things go in West Virginia, which I believe is the biggest coal producing state in the US.

Overlooking that though the environmental impact of the stuff aint so nice, both from the mining of it in the first place to the emissions that result from the process.

i like your detour to `lets talk about nasty coal` but i`d rather keep the original `safe as nice can be nuclear` topic going- you saying- but coals worse, but wave powers noisey but but but......doesnt cut it. its nuclear stuff that is so toxic that a leak here affects you over there.

 

[sirblue57]

It wasn't widely reported at the time but in the mid 80's Thatcher was whiskers away from winning a Nobel prize for her role in removing so many from the dangerous profession of mining.

hmm, i understand why you took the psuedenum "bruce wayne" now, cause your obviously batty man. maybe you should change it to "captain kirk" "deflectors on mr sulu, NOW."

 

[zed]

It wasn't widely reported at the time but in the mid 80's Thatcher was whiskers away from winning a Nobel prize for her role in removing so many from the dangerous profession of mining.

ha, nice one. Bruce Wayne is Monty Burns. your true identity is out, pah crime fighter indeed

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not suggesting nuclear is without flaws. The capital costs to build a nuclear plant are huge. The management of the waste is still very uncertain and unless a way to destroy it is found is likely to be costly.

The thing is, similar flaws exist with most energy forms. Coal is dangerous to extract and dirty to use. It is however cheap and available, both in terms of quantity and where we can get it from. Oil is relatively easy to get, but doubts exist over ongoing supply. Shale sands are plentiful and available in friendly countries but is horrible from an environmental perspective and consumes vast amounts of water. Gas is relatively cheap and the cleanest of fossil fuels, but most of it comes from dodgy regimes, especially in Europe where Russia is the dominant player.

Renewables aren't ready yet. Wind I don't think will ever be more than a minor player and is expensive at the moment. Solar has plentiful supply but is even pricier than wind at the moment (not helped by relatively un-sunny countries like Germany hogging supply of silicon due to large subsidies for solar usage). Biofuels are frankly criminal and there mass takeup is largely a political play to appease farmers. It isn't particularly green and has helped fuel the rise in food prices. Brazilian crops are better than most but they don't have access to the market due to tariffs and subsidies. Other sources like geothermal hold great potential but are minority players at the moment. Ditto tidal and so on.

Of course energy efficiency probably holds the biggest potential, but you have the Jevons Paradox whereby increases in efficiency simply mean we use more energy by doing more.

So it isn't a simple picture at all as there aren't any solutions that tick every box. So of course nuclear isn't perfect, but it is a technology we have to use.