Simon

Here is some interesting reading from scitizen.com: A new study shows that wind farms and nuclear power plants are substantially better for avian wildlife than fossil-fueled power stations. [...] Yet perhaps wind turbines seem to present a significant threat to birds because all of their environmental impacts are concentrated in one place, while those from conventional and nuclear fuel cycles are spread across space and time. Avian mortality and wind energy has consequently received far more attention and research than the avian deaths associated with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power generators, even though this study suggests that wind energy may be the least harmful to birds. READ MORE, click here!

No I think we are starting to move a little bit off-topic here. It's still on an tolerant level but I am just giving some early warnings. :cute:

PLEASE NOTE EVERYONE: Can we please try to stay a bit on-topic, which is: How green is nuclear power? You are more than welcome to create new topics discussing all these other subjects. Thanks!

I have written a little about that here: http://www.green-blog.org/2009/02/17/madne...clear-reactors/ So what you are saying is you have no answers or ideas on how we can safely store the highly dangerous and toxic nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years? Maybe you shouldn't go around promoting nuclear energy when neither you nor the nuclear industry have any real, cost-effective and safe storage ideas? Here in Sweden offshore wind farms have created safe places (once constructed) for the declining fish stock in the Baltic sea. So it's really a win-win situation. But the older upper class don't want too see any wind farms because it "clutter" their view. Instead they want to have opencast coal mines or an toxic nuclear plant placed far away from them and instead near and around where poor and middle class people are living.

I will probably watch some of it. I think its pretty silly-fun! ;)

Preferably both! :)

Well it is actually less expensive than the Amazon Kindle and it uses the open EPub format which means you can save some money on the books. :cute: AND it is available in Europe as well...

Tomorrow it's the final of Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow, Russia. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/home Will you watch it? Which country do you hope will win? "MOSCOW — Amid a frenzied light show, pyrotechnics and questionable wardrobe decisions, performers from across Europe will seek melodic supremacy Saturday night at the annual Eurovision song contest. The continent's gaudiest, loudest and most popular music competition isn't just a battle of the bands. It's a 24 million euro ($32.5 million) showcase for the 42 participating nations, which typically attracts 100 million viewers from around the world. As last year's winner, Russia is hosting the annual competition for the first time. The contest hasn't only fired up pop music fans and spawned a host of parties, it has raised issues such as racial tolerance and gay rights only occasionally debated in Russian society." [source]

Yes I completely agree. This could be a real boost for Africa as well as for Europe. And it's a great way for the two continents to come closer together.

However we also need to take other personal actions that make the climate criminals and war criminals ACCOUNTABLE for their appalling crimes. Although it is honourable and something I look forward too I don't think we will ever be able to prosecute climate criminals (unless it's an mob of climate refugees seeking justice in their own way). If Obama won't even prosecute his country's shameful torturers how are we supposed to be able to prosecute climate criminals? Lars G Josefsson who is the CEO of Vattenfall, which is one of the worst climate offenders in Europe, have become a climate advisor(!) for the German and Swedish government. It's disgusting! Here we have a company that is investing heavily in coal power and that yearly produces more greenhouse gases than the whole of Sweden combined, but how does our leaders treat him and his company? They turn him into a climate advisor... The world is crazy!

However we also need to take other personal actions that make the climate criminals and war criminals ACCOUNTABLE for their appalling crimes. If Obama won't even prosecute his country's shameful torturers how are we supposed to be able to prosecute climate criminals? Lars G Josefsson who is CEO of Vattenfall, which is one of the worst climate offenders in Europe, have become a climate advisor(!) for the German and Swedish government. It's disgusting! Here we have a company that is investing heavily in coalpower and that yearly produces more greenhouse gases than the whole of Sweden combined but how does our supposed leaders treat him and his company? They appoint him to a climate advisor... The world is crazy!

It was a joke. Calm down! Alright? And to answer your question. Yes, I do consider myself well informed when it comes to topics like this one. I've actually written a lot about the dirty nuclear industry and it's old and dangerous technologies. And what exactly is anything? It takes several years to build a nuclear reactor. And the cost for constructing it, running it and de-constructing the plant is astronomical. But let's take the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) reactor (the only nuclear reactor being built in the West since many years back) as an example here. The Olkiluoto reactor is already over 3 years behind schedule (estimated time before the construction started was 5-6 years), has had several severe security incidents and mailfunctions during construction and the construction is massively over-budget. That ill-fated project accounts for 85 per cent of Finland's energy investment for 2006-2010. The opportunities lost in that time for building a renewable energy future are unimaginable. And don't forget that it takes years to decommission and close down a nuclear plant. Let's take the UK as an example here. Nuclear plants don't last very long compared to other energy sources and the decommission of the plant takes years and costs a lot. Take the UK and their +40 year-old nuclear plant Oldbury as an example of this. The Oldbury plant will cost more than one billion pounds (£) and take 110 years to decommission (thats almost three times the period it has been active and working!). And if the UK were to decomission all of their old nuclear plants it would cost, according to the "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority", over 70 billion pounds (£)!! But the true cost of nuclear is much higher if you don't count in the mad subsidies the governments give to these energy companies and their nuclear reactors (as well as paying for their insurance as no insurance company in the world wants to deal with nuclear reactors.. hmm I wonder why..?). And we wont be able to reduce GHG emissions with nuclear energy. If we are to do that we need to build around 1000 new nuclear reactors around the world. And frankly, we don't have the money or the time for that. Meanwhile China builds a wind turbine every two hours. Of course the difference is both huge and important! You can't honestly say that there is no difference between "a few country sized" and "the size of a (one) small country". And I will quote that Guardian article once more as it seems you missed some important parts of it: "Government investment worth £50bn would convince private companies that power from the Sahara solar scheme is feasible and attractive option, expert says" That is nothing compared to the costs of old and dangerous nuke-tech. Nothing is impossible to accomplish if you just have the will for it. If there is something that proves that it's history! And what kind of limits are you taking about? It's not hard to insulate every home in the UK. It will create jobs, contribute to the economy, reduce GHG emissions and reduce your energy dependence on natural gas and other energy sources. Invest in an European supergrid? "Scientists from the EU are planning for a new supergrid between the different EU member states. This new supergrid will be built using new DC (HVDC) lines which are perfect for transmissions of energy over long distances. The supergrid could allow Denmark and the UK to export wind energy and Iceland to export geothermal energy at times when production exceeds demand to other EU member states. But the supergrids main purpose would be to transmit renewable solar energy from the Saharan desert to Europe. The scientists want to build a series of huge solar farms in the Saharan desert and connect them to the supergrid." Yes. You can find the sources here: http://www.green-blog.org/2009/02/17/madne...clear-reactors/ Although some of them are written in Swedish. Yes and we can go to the moon and get uranium from there too! And that is not a joke according to the nuclear industry. Now that must be a joke. Right? No. Instead it is nuclear energy that is blocking necessary actions against man-made climate change and "prolonging our dependence on oil and gas". A perfect example of this is the mess in Finland and their new reactor I wrote about earlier in this post. Nuclear energy is Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective and Will Worsen Climate Change. Simply put: nuclear power is not the answer to our energy and climate crisis. No, not every country is Sweden. But every country has the possibility to enforce strict environmental standards, invest in energy efficiency and promote the renewable energy sector. Something the UK unfortunately is not even trying to do at the moment... Aha! There we have the answer for your love for nukes: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/vide...-cpre-wind-coal No, because that is what your government is for. Just like the governments are doing in Sweden and Germany. When the time and money is limited we can't afford to waste it all on something as dangerous, expensive and stupid as nuclear energy. But let me ask you a question for a change. How do you think we should store and save the highly deadly and toxic nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years?

You don't need a car! I don't have one and I hope I never get one. :cute: More cars running on electricity means we need to build more power plants to be able to supply all of our energy needs. And lets take Europe as an example here. In 2005, 35% of electricity generated came from nuclear sources. Only 14% of electricity generated in Europe comes from renewable sources. So that means that your brand new electric car is 35% nuclear, 51% CO2 emitting and only 14% green. [source]

You can find information about that from this Advertising film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5o6oFQwLKA "Every day thousands of cars are driven to and from Swedish airports. Every car holds only 1,2 persons on average which is to be compared with the Airport Coach that takes over 50. Needless to say, this makes no sense whatsoever from an environmental standpoint. To highlight this, an enormous bus was built out of 50 cars on the side of the highway to the airport. On the website, a live camera not only shows the installation 24/7 but also analyses the image and tracks each and every car going by. This data is then being used to highlight just how much emission we could save just by going by bus instead."

I wish you the best of luck in your zero-waste efforts. And I might take a closer look on my own garbage and see if I can reduce it in some ways. :cute: Sweden will take over the EU presidency soon. But if I were you I shouldn't have so high hopes on Sweden when it comes to the environment and the climate. This is because Sweden currently has a right-wing government who has done everything in their power to slow down, delay and stop environmentally sane progress in Sweden. For example has the Swedish right-wing government has called for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries. [source]

It's late here and I am tired so I will just reply to a few points you made: But you are saying against yourself here. It's about emission reductions as well as sustainable energy. And with renewable energy you will get both of that. With nuclear energy you will only get one of those things: emission reductions. But those emission reductions will come too late and will be too expensive. And nuclear energy is not a sustainable energy source. The fuel to run nuclear energy will eventually be depleted, just like oil. With todays usage(!) the fuel is said to be depleted within 60-80 years, and that is according to the more positive reports. No I probably won't. Because he sounds like a nuke-hugger. I've read James Lovelock's books and his positive viewpoints of nuclear energy. His viewpoint of nuclear energy is interesting, to say the least. His idea of dealing with the highly toxic and deadly nuclear waste is to spread it out in the rainforest - to keep humans away from cutting it down. Yes I agree. Time is unfortunately no longer on our side, as you probably know. So why are you such a vocal supporter for nuclear energy? Because if we were to ignore the waste problems, the potential terrorist threats, the extreme costs and the nuclear weapons we still have one major problem. And that is the fact that it takes years to build a nuclear reactor. And especially now when the nuclear industry luckily haven't been much active in building new plants. A few country sized solar arrays? What are you talking about? According to experts: "...only a fraction of the Sahara, probably the size of a small country, would need to be covered to produce enough energy to supply the whole of Europe." source Lifestyle changes are a must. And if we don't accept that fact it doesn't matter if we invest in nukes or wind. But maybe the UK could start by making their homes more energy efficient? It seems I constantly hear on the news that the old homes and houses in the UK are far from insulated and releases major quantities of heat. Energy efficiency is the key to success. According to who? It seems you don't take into account the progress that is being made in terms of energy efficiency. Just because we get more electric tech stuff doesn't nessecarily mean the energy usage will increase. In Sweden and many other countries the energy usage is actually going down creating unwanted surplus of electricity. "Advocators for nuclear energy often claim that we need more electricity or we will get energy shortages in the future. But this is far from true. Sweden has a surplus of electricity and has had ever since 1980. In 2007-2008 the energy usage dropped by 2%. And according to reports from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) and the Swedish Energy Agency our energy surplus will increase considerably in the next 10-15 years without any new nuclear reactors or political actions needed. They expect that by 2020 Sweden will have a 60% energy surplus (40 TWh) of what today’s nuclear energy plants contributes. And this is mainly because of the construction of new wind farms, biomass plants and energy efficiency efforts. And Sweden can’t sell the energy surplus because a majority of the countries in Europe also have a surplus of electricity. Denmark, a neighbouring country to Sweden, even has considered donating away its energy surplus to other countries." Over and out. Sleep well.

Jesse Ventura, a former Navy SEAL and former Minnesota Governor, says a few sane words: Watch video 1 and video 2. Some highlights: source

Well yes but of course! I did just use one computer. Well that could be fun. But I don't know.. For me earth day is just another day where you have to live "green". It feels that day is just "special" so that corporations can sell their consumerism by calling it green.

hehe that is great! :thumbup: Ohhh I don't know really. I don't count it. But I do compost the food and recycle everything else.

According to my sources a bus pollutes as much as 4 cars. And an average car transports 1.2 people. So if the bus would only have 4 people travelling in it it would still be a good deal for the climate. :cute:

Well these are some of the more modern and better ones. My mom lives in Halmstad, another city, and they got dreadful old bus wrecks. But that city is all about low taxes and minimum public investment so they dont get all these superb shiny things. :cute: