Bastard know-it-all NIMBY green activists.
Do you know who really curdles my milk with hypocrisy? Bastard think-they-know-it-all green activists.

Me: Our country is dependent on coal, gas, and a small amount of nuclear power. Coal and gas are dirty! The activists cry. True. Let’s diversify and try to sort out some more nuclear reactors.

Activist: No! We can’t have more nuclear reactors! Nuklear=eevil.

m: Right, let’s try and build a tidal barrage on the river Severn. It will be able to generate up to 5% of the UK’s power needs.

a: No! There is an obscure animal that needs to live there.

m: Ok. Solar power can’t generate what we need. Wind power?

a: Yes! We like wind power!

me: Ok, can we place the turbines near your house?

a: Oh no! You can’t do that!

m: Moving on. Cheap flights?

a: Nooo! Evil. Carbon things and rubbish. Eveil!

m: Even though flights only generate 3% of UK carbon emissions?

a: EEVIL! Carbon momoxide is eviels.

m: Right, lets stop all UK internal flights and build a high speed maglev train that will link up the UK and it will only take 3 and a half hours to go from Edinburgh to London?

a: No, there is a newt that lives in a swamp near the M1 and it would be MURDERDED by new railways.

And my all time favourite.

“I am just browsing the ‘net on my iphone to check out the latest ‘Destroy all 3G masts’ site. Those 3G masts are all eveil you know, my Jeremy got headcrabs because we lived less than 35 mile away from them.”
(powervator and NONE SHALL PASS, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:45, 11 replies)

*CLICKS WITH SHARED FURY*
and then is spent.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:53, closed)

3G
“I am just browsing the ‘net on my iphone to check out the latest ‘Destroy all 3G masts’ site. Those 3G masts are all eveil you know,"

I hate those cunts. Always the first to moan about a new site being installed - yet it fails to come to their attention that they're using it quite extensively. If I could invent a way to stab people over the internet, these moaning bastards would be the first ones I'd test it on.

Retard science for retard NIMBY's. I could quite literally fill a book about how full of shit they are.
(mymilkshakebringsallthemongstotheyard poison hearts, poison minds - joining hate, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:02, closed)

The words 'Carbon Footprint' always wind me up
A while back, the Metro paper printed a whimsical story about a man who was trying to raise money to fly out to Australia for the weekend to attend his best friend's stag night.

The next day the letters page had some angry environmentalist kicking off about how this bloke was very irresponsible and flying off to Australia for one day would give him such a huge carbon footprint he'd be single-handedly destroying planet earth, and all that indignant crap.

The day after that there was another letter from a more sensible person, calmly pointing out that the planes would still be flying regardless of whether the man was on them or not.
(Uncle Comrade, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:20, closed)

Carbon Footprint?
Thats what I leave on the hall carpet when I'm changing the oil in my 4x4!
(Sir Tainley Barking Ezekiel 23:20, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 20:51, closed)

Murderer

( Reginald Von Hammercock, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:31, closed)

why not
suggest using the Lake district for pumped (hydro) storage?
(haberman is singing in the changes, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:26, closed)

*Furious clickage*
I'm in favour of more nuclear power. Just a thought though- won't we run out of uranium just like we're supposedly running out of oil?
( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:16, closed)

Depends on the tech used.
Fast breeders fell out of favour in the 1950s, as they could be used to weaponise fissionable materials. However they are *much* more effective at burning fissiles than regular reactors - in conjunction with reprocessing, it's possible to break down a good 70% of fissiles rather than the 10% or so conventional reactors manage.

This also results in the waste coming out the other end being a whole lot less reactive than spent fuel from a traditional reactor.

Also, they can burn Thorium - which is a lot more abundant than uranium.

(I grew up with the spectres of three mile island and chernobyl, but currently believe nuclear fission is the best current stop-gap we have).

YS
(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_ =o.o=, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:33, closed)

I don't know about you, but I feel a little uneasy hearing "nuclear" and "stop-gap" in the same sentence. Makes me imagine reactors held together with duct tape.
(Musuko, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:38, closed)

there's a longer supply of fissiles than of fossils
and crucially, we're fairly well aware of the finite availability; at the *beginning* of the useage curve. If the public knew how scarce oil really was back when oil first kicked off; would it have been so misused? (Oil- and gas- fired power stations FFS!*) We have now a fairly good idea how much accessible nuclear fuel** there is; which is the cornerstone of budgeting it's use.

* I know, useful for short lead-time temporary capacity; but it shouldn't be used for regular generation just because gas is cheap at that moment.

** According to wikipedia, A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. So could we run nuclear-stations off coal-station waste?
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 5:49, closed)

For some reason
I thought this was Frankspencer until I got to the bottom.





I shudder to think of the bitterness to come...
( MatJ LOOK, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:21, closed)