Renewables have a pretty big impact on the ecosystems that people like to bleat about.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:13, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

You know me well enough by now to know that I don't care about public opinion.
Nuclear is better than fossil, but you still need to build the things, and concrete is a massive carbon emitter - and reactors use a lot of concrete.

You're going to get an impact on the system whatever you do (or, rather, the impact is part of the system). And not all impacts are bad: the Norfolk broads and Cambridge Fells are lauded today as environmentally precious, but they're just the result of mediaeval geoengineering (aren't they? The general point'd stand that changing an area doesn't mean damaging it.).

I'm not denying the place of nuclear - fission or potentially fusion; but I don't think that it is, or has to be, the whole story.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:20, Reply)

Aren't the new proposed sites for nuclear power
based on building at existing nuclear plants, e.g. Oldbury, Hinkley?

And your point about changing the landscape can also apply on a global scale with regards to climate change.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:38, Reply)

they are
but at hinkley for example, they are wanting to level a big area of farm land and pave it to make new accommodation and a park and ride for the people working on the construction. among other things.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:42, Reply)

Yes - you're right...
... but see my reply to your reply to Legless. CC isn't just about alteration - that's not a problem - but about the fact that it'll predictably diminish the quality of life of millions. There's a good welfare-based reason to worry about it.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:48, Reply)

I don't much care.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:24, Reply)