A Future That Works

A Future That Works
NO2aTory/Liberal coalition - Vote with your feet for an alternative to a neo-liberal economy and neo-conservative state Yes2aLeftFront and a Red/Green Left Alliance

Thursday 17 March 2011

Wolfie: Who would chose nuclear energy

Wolfie: Who would chose nuclear energy

6 comments:

  1. Climate Change Crisis Following Japing Earthquake 21st March 2011

    The human cost so far of the disaster in Japan is 18,400 people have died and further 452,000 people are living in shelters. The World Bank estimates a financial cost of £145bn equivalent to 4% of Japan's GDP to repair the damage. There is still smoke or steam rising from one of its reactor units at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant raising concerns that water in the spent fuel pools at the No 3 unit was running low. Engineers have succeeded in connecting power cables to three of the plant's reactors and plan to test the pumps soon.The No 3 reactor has had a surge in pressure which may require radioactive steam to be vented to the atmosphere.

    Yukio Edano the government's chief spokesman has said the build-up of pressure is unsettling. "We knew that even if things went smoothly, there would be twists and turns. At the moment, we are not so optimistic that there will be a breakthrough." The concern is that the reactor contains plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel MOX and would release highly toxic plutonium if a meltdown occurs the fuel in the other reactors is uranium.

    Japan's nuclear safety agency has said they don’t believe much water from the reactors had seeped underground. Its known that radiation has leaked from the reactors into the region's food supply, though the agency say at levels too low to endanger health. Radiation in excess of government standards was found in canola and chrysanthemum greens grown in the Fukushima area, a day after authorities reported that milk and spinach had been contaminated, as well as tap water in Tokyo, 150 miles away.

    The health ministry advised 6,000 villagers in Iitate, 19 miles from the power plant, not to drink tap water after tests revealed it contained abnormal amounts of radioactive substance iodine-131. Tetsuro Fukuyama deputy cabinet secretary says "We think we have arrived at the point where we are very close to getting the situation under control".

    I think the tabloids are already trying to bury it with ‘‘War propaganda’’ and patriotism for the armed forces flying over Libya so the old ‘‘War trick’’ is being played again as it was with the Falkland’s war in 1982. Let’s hope this time it doesn’t work for David Cameron like it did for Maggie and that another middle east conflict dose for Cameron what it did for Blair. They want regime change so that Libya’s oil well can be privatised like those of Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s government fell and look at what the results been for the people of Iraq so we know who will benefit from regime change Shell Oil not the people.

    http://leftalternatives.myfineforum.org/ftopic168-60.php

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why not chose solar energy

    This could stimulate the economy by invest in green energy production on a national scale. Governments adopted a programme of installing solar panels on every home, office and factory. Unused electricity could then feed back into the national grid.

    Such a programme would reduce the dependency on fossil fuels along with a positive programme for wind turbines creating employment in manufacture and installation of the solar panels. Most households would find the cost of installation prohibitive therefore it would require government investment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Economic uncertainty due to the slowdown in the global economy and the Eurozone debt crisis threatens investment in renewable energy projects. According to an Ernst & Young report as investors are seeing the cost of financing renewable energy installations projects rise in countries most exposed to economic uncertainty, adding that this might mean projects being cancelled or delayed, adding that In Britain planning regulations continue to hinder large-scale renewable energy development.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rather than government money going to costly and environmentally dangerous nuclear energy projects it would be much more environmentally friendly for governments to invest taxpayer’s money in solar, wind and wave energy projects which have the added advantage of being much more labour intensive and therefore creating jobs and stimulating the whole economy from the manufacturing process to the building industry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How safe will Britain’s new nuclear plants be?

    The government's nuclear industry regulator is monitoring information after safety concerns raised about construction processes at a Chinese power plant being built by French companies who want to construct similar installations in Britain. Similar concerns have been raised at sites in France and Finland being built and operated by EDF and Areva.

    EDF and Areva want to build and operate reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. EDF have had to delay the start of its new reactor at Flamanville in Normandy following the Fukushima disaster in Japan and fatal accidents have raised costs.

    Greenpeace Chief Scientist Dr Doug Parr says ‘‘In China they can't even get the right cement. Here in the UK, the Government and the nuclear industry want to rush new power stations through without checking the implications and lessons learnt from Fukushima. We are being asked to believe that EDF are fit and proper people to build the next generation of nuclear power stations, starting at Hinkley Point, when these documents make clear they're not’’.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.