<Extrapolating UK's oil production history to the World caseThe Oil Drum: EuropeJoint Energy Security of Supply Working Group>

71 comments on UK Energy Developments

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

RowanF on May 17, 2006 - 6:05am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Lemme see. Over the past 200 years or so humanity burned massive amounts of fossil fuels, producing enough CO2 to change the global climate for the next hundred years at least. Now we're being told that we have to use nuclear fuel to close the energy gap - but no-one points out that the waste is highly dangerous for something like 10,000 years. What we've done so far will affect probably the next 4 generations of humans. Going nuclear on a grand scale would affect the next 400 generations. Get real! Why don't we just try the bleedin' obvious - close the energy gap by using less energy. Sure it'll affect the global economy in the very short term (maybe 1 generation?) before everyone adapts - but isn't that better than the alternatives?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on May 17, 2006 - 7:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ok,
So lets all (all 60 million of us that is) go back to 'Hobbiton'.
I am sure we can all hack it down at the Prancing Pony after a leisurely couple of hours working in the fields.

Conservation will play a very big part, but conserving down to zero is not an option.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
biffvernon on May 17, 2006 - 2:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's your best suggestion yet, mudlogger.  I'm told the Prancing Pony does a very good beer.  You don't need nuclear power to provide the better things in life.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on May 18, 2006 - 5:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We have 60 million hobbits in the Shire.
All wanting the best things in life.
Hope you got yer Mithrail Waistcoat handy.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SHiFTY on May 17, 2006 - 8:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually the more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays into a safe element. Within a few decades, the spent fuel has only a few percent of the original radioactivity, and can be reprocessed (recycled) and used again. The waste created is nasty, sure; but it is a very small amount and is tightly controlled. Unlike say the thousands of tons of toxic ash and CO2 created by coal burning.

The problems of long term waste disposal is mainly political- deep underground storage is feasible and not too costly- the technology-loving Finns are building theirs right now. And after a few hundred years it's not going to be dangerous, given that its so deep and the 'hot' elements will have decayed away to almost nothing.

Bravo to Tony Blair's plan. Relying on the Russians and ME countries for security of supply in the future strikes me as a terrible gamble, and a combination of new nukes, renewables and conservation sounds like a sensible long term plan as well as good for CO2 emissions.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pondlife on May 17, 2006 - 7:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So we still have to rely on other countries. We have no uranium ore in the UK. Renewables are free and here
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.