Nuclear energy?

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
I notice a very interesting post on FMD New from Brent in Canada.
I've copied it below for those of you who haven't seen it already.

It's interesting to me because there are proposals for a new wind farm locally, (south east coast of Berwickshire, Scotland) which is attracting more opposition daily.

I realise we are going to have to increase our supplies of power if we want to continue using it at the same and increased levels.

There is much debate concerning the efficiency of wind farms and it seems that all Governments are likely to turn to increased nuclear energy.

It may be the sensible thing to do for many reasons but...what do you think?

Brent wrote –

"Who would you choose to decide how to dispose of nuclear waste — a focus group or leading scientists?

Quite how this has happened is hard to explain, except when one realises that the committee comes under the auspices of Defra — the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs — which has a lamentable track record in encouraging and retaining scientific know-how. This is the body which, in its previous incarnation, refused to listen to the world’s greatest experts on foot-and-mouth during the 2001 outbreak, which allowed the leading scientists in its animal health laboratories to be poached by foreign governments, and which withdrew funding from Professor Alan Ebringer, who was reaching important conclusions on the alleged links between BSE and variform CJD. Examining Professor Ball’s long and detailed letter to Mr Morley, the same syndrome can be detected. Defra has assembled a committee that draws together a broad range of laypeople rather than the best available experts in nuclear waste disposal. Defra’s objective has been to win round public opinion to an agreed solution http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062–1586734,00.html

Brent(Canada)"
                        

Originally from: coleen
                        
Hi Jane

I know that there is a lot of opposition to wind farms (might feel the same if one/several were planned on my back doorstep) but surely they are a lot less damaging than nuclear. I think the main problem with wind farms is where they are situated. I cannot understand why they have to be put on the edges of national parks or in areas to cause nuisance to local people etc etc. We have plenty of sites where they would cause hardly disturbance why not use these.

I know they say they kill birdlife (but that argument does not stack up) our waterways and seas are dying because of what is tipped into them. Radioactive waste is also killing of the food chain – so it's a double whammy really. That's without what it is doing to us?

I am against nuclear because we are just being 'greedy/selfish' and leaving one big mess for future generations to have to deal with. We cannot dispose of the waste we have already...why create more. The cost of disposing of the waste costs more than producing the stuff. The size of the underground storage facilities at Rigg (near Sellafied) are enormous ...and growing all the time.
Some years ago Rigg was part of a geological survey costing millions It was hoped it could be the dumping ground for 'non' low grade waste. (I believe they have something similar in Sweden). The bed rock was not suitable. The villagers breathed a huge sigh of relief. Imagine sitting on that time bomb!

So all of this waste is still sitting there (growing daily) in containers – waiting to find somewhere to spend it days. Can we really bury this so far below ground and say it will be safe. The climate is changing! What about earthquakes?

Not sure what the real answer to our energy problem is, but surely it cannot be more nuclear. Man seems good at solving the immediate problems – but not at the long term consequences both for us – and future generations.

Coleen