World energy crunch as nuclear and oil both go wrong

ninky_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

I've planned ahead. I live in the hills away from any flood plains in a house that was built in the 1700s with heating and hot water powered partially by wood with solar coming on-line in a couple of years. A nice smallholding for our veggies and a brook running through my land supplying water to said veggies and any goats, other livestock we may farm.

They knew how to build houses in 1700 to deal with a world without oil, gas and petrol.

You lot are knackered, but I'm all right, Jack.

i think radio isotopes don't recognise self sufficiency as adequate reason not to land. unless you know differently? they'd work their way into you and your food supply as readily as ours i'm afraid and you'd be just as reliant on modern healthcare for cancer treatment. unless you've got a diy chemo ward in the shed too?

grimsalve

RenovationMan wrote: »

I've planned ahead. I live in the hills away from any flood plains in a house that was built in the 1700s with heating and hot water powered partially by wood with solar coming on-line in a couple of years. A nice smallholding for our veggies and a brook running through my land supplying water to said veggies and any goats, other livestock we may farm.

They knew how to build houses in 1700 to deal with a world without oil, gas and petrol.

You lot are knackered, but I'm all right, Jack.

...until they build a nuclear reactor next to your house.

Kohoutek

RenovationMan wrote: »

You lot are knackered, but I'm all right, Jack.

Good luck dealing with the angry, hungry mob WTSHTF....

Niksan

I don't like the use of this 'we' business regarding population growth, some of us are happy with just two children, some with 0, I admit there will be an overlap having two children due to life expectancy but that is a generation time scale, but I'm sure premature deaths and the people who go without having children make up for this. Anyway, it won't end for all, genocide will hit before things are depleted and things will recover, a reset.

ninky_2

Niksan wrote: »

I don't like the use of this 'we' business regarding population growth, some of us are happy with just two children, some with 0, I admit there will be an overlap having two children due to life expectancy but that is a generation time scale, but I'm sure premature deaths and the people who go without having children make up for this. Anyway, it won't end for all, genocide will hit before things are depleted and things will recover, a reset.

you don't know how many children your children are going to have though do you? someone who has two children might actually end up triggering a greater population growth than someone who has ten.

the only real way to guarantee is for significantly greater numbers of people not to have them at all. plus in terms of population growth the older you have if you do have them the better.

look i'm sure your children are lovely and wonderful and we wouldn't wish them away now but the reality is that we've got to reduce somehow.

edinburgher

I've planned ahead. I live in the hills away from any flood plains in a house that was built in the 1700s with heating and hot water powered partially by wood with solar coming on-line in a couple of years. A nice smallholding for our veggies and a brook running through my land supplying water to said veggies and any goats, other livestock we may farm.

Sounds like heaven mate, hope you appreciate it

ninky_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

No Japanese radiation in my soil, thanks.

...

not yet. but if there was an accident here you'd be just as impacted as anyone. if society really broke down that much your survival would depend on your wits more than anything. the fact you own the deeds to a smallholding would count for jack !!!!.

anyway in other news....an interview with someone living in fukushima with two small children (around 60km from the plant).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/03/110317_fukushima_chave_wt_sl.shtml

MrEnglish

RenovationMan wrote: »

Of course I could have waited 5 years and bought it for £2k less.....

If you wait another 5 yrs it will have fallen in value even more

StevieJ

ninky wrote: »

this is the issue. we short sightedly keep filling our increased capacity with more people. a move to nuclear will just do the same. palliative at best.

I thought the Chinese were only allowed one child per couple these days, seems like they have made the effort.

Loanranger

StevieJ wrote: »

So where do we go from here?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/8386829/World-energy-crunch-as-nuclear-and-oil-both-go-wrong.html

This article is journalistic scaremongering.

The major error made by the Japanese was to build the reactors next to the coast. Had the nuclear reactors been built on higher ground, above the level of the tsunami, this crisis would not have occurred. The tsunami is believed to be a one in a 1000 year event. Hardly an everyday occurrence. The earthquake itself did not cause the damage.
No doubt the Japanese will learn for the future not to build nuclear reactors on low ground.

Nuclear energy cannot be dismissed simply because of a one in a one thousand year event.

Should we not wait until the outcome of this crisis is over and we have the evidence of the extent of the human damage before condemning nuclear energy?