World energy crunch as nuclear and oil both go wrong

ninky_2

StevieJ wrote: »

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

yes. we'd be in a far worse situation if they hadn't. the chinese also link 'one child' to increased prosperity. i'm not keen on legislating against reproduction. a seachange in attitude would be far more desirable (and not impossible to achieve).

ninky_2

Loanranger wrote: »

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?

given the very little time between the earthquake and the tsunami hitting in fukushima i think it would be hard to determine exactly whether the plant would have been problem free had there been no tsunami. it's very convenient to assume it would have been fine without the tsunami given that they were reduced to using seawater as coolant (suggesting possible coolant supply failure not just pump failure).

the pro nuclear lobby are going to dig themselves into a hole if they continue to insist none of the issues were caused by the earthquake. there's simply not enough evidence to judge at this stage.

edinburgher

yes. we'd be in a far worse situation if they hadn't. the chinese also link 'one child' to increased prosperity. i'm not keen on legislating against reproduction. a seachange in attitude would be far more desirable (and not impossible to achieve).

I'm sure I read somewhere that they were relaxing this? But yes, smaller average families could only be a good thing in avoiding a lot of problems for humanity in future. I'm not talking about overcrowding - there's plenty of land if we could get rid of some of the more moronic planning laws, but there are only finite resources to be used before we need to get really radical with our solutions (and I can't see us wizzing off into space to find a new home any time soon!)

ninky_2

edinburgher wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that they were relaxing this? But yes, smaller average families could only be a good thing in avoiding a lot of problems for humanity in future. I'm not talking about overcrowding - there's plenty of land if we could get rid of some of the more moronic planning laws, but there are only finite resources to be used before we need to get really radical with our solutions (and I can't see us wizzing off into space to find a new home any time soon!)

industrial scale agriculture and long shelf life food has already come up with some grim solutions and more are planned (super dairies and meat 'grown' in vats). i can see a time in the future where nature is only preserved in pockets as a 'paid for' attractions.

i'd say overseas charities would do well to concentrate efforts on family planning and educating people on the links between poverty and high birthrates. unfortunately religious dogma will get in the way in many areas.

Wookster

Conrad wrote: »

Bring on, I look forward to a more old school society actualy, when we grow up a bit.

You mean when we all buy more houses for ever higher prices? :rotfl:

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Cant, I'm nowhere near the coast. Besides do you really think there will be any more fission reactors built now?



Farmer = Shotgun.



No Japanese radiation in my soil, thanks.



Every single day.

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

You should have bought a place in Lambeth about 20 years ago when it was a nuclear free zone.

StevieJ

Loanranger wrote: »

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?

It is all about public attitudes and how they view Nuclear energy, then again the Japanese are the most reliant on Nuclear in the world and we all know what happened there before, twice :eek:

StevieJ

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.

Do you live in them thar hills?