January 10, 2008

Nuclear Power? Don’t Buy It!

Filed under: Nuclear Power — ken finn @ 9:46 pm

Nuclear Power Nah

Going nuclear is the wrong decision for all the wrong reasons.

If you care to see my thoughts on the subject search this blog on ‘Nuclear’ but for now my best response to this lunacy is to simply don’t buy it!

Here’s what you do, call your energy supplier and tell them you won’t be buying your electricty from them while a percentage of their supply comes from Nuclear. Then change to Ecotricity an energy company which generates all of its energy from wind.

For once we have an alternative. Lets show them exactly what we think of their toxic nonsense! Don’t buy it!


March 19, 2006

Gypsies Thieves and Liars

Filed under: ,Nuclear Power — ken finn @ 12:10 am


So it seems like the decision to go nuclear has been made.

The more I hear the propaganda dressed as debate the more obvious it becomes that the nuclear vested interested have it sown up. We’re being softened up for a job already done. Climate change has been a very helpful tool to make the justification but if this government cared about the environment they certainly wouldn’t be promoting airport expansion, road building and economic growth.

A growing economy is the only justification for Nuclear power – using more energy, consuming more. Plundering the earth, stealing from the future. Thieving the wonder of the planet from our offspring.

And just like the gypsies that have been vilified for leaving a mess for others to clean up we nuclear nations are quite prepared to create a waste so toxic that it will be a problem for up to ten future generations to manage.

If energy is becoming scarce and the earth is suffering from the effects of our toxic lifestyle then the obvious solution would be to reduce our dependency on finite energy, to become more efficient and reduce our consumption. Our political system is so up the arse of the corporate system though that they can’t seem to see the obvious. Instead our leaders continue to perpetuate the lie that we can continue with business as usual.

December 29, 2005

The Flying Pig High Energy Diet

Filed under: ,Nuclear Power — ken finn @ 12:47 am

Flying Pig Energy Theory

Windmills on Petrol Station Logic

One of my eX’s mum is quite a large lady and like most quite large ladies she has a thing about her weight. Trouble is she loves food; she loves fattening food, she’s an addict. In the heyday of the 1980′s fad diets she flitted from one to another, lured by the promise of easy weight loss. She cruised the women’s magazines in search of the no pain miracle.

Monday’s often began with the grit of determination and a nude jacket potato. By Wednesday caught demolishing a large bowl of peanuts or something equally fat laden she would immediately offer the defence that this month’s diet allowed unlimited amounts of peanuts or whatever as a ‘treat’ in a strict regime of celery and cottage cheese.

Blinded by her desires she began to cherry pick her favorite treats from otherwise austere diets and eventually amalgamated them into one ideal diet. She ate peanuts from one, crisps from another and unlimited alcohol from another and so on. Of course she never lost any weight but she could always claim that she was on a diet. She could say she was ‘trying.’

When it comes to energy our desires have us tied in similar knots. We’re looking for the miracle solution to a problem that just won’t resolve. Namely how do we provide a continued supply of cheap reliable energy to ensure uninterrupted economic growth in the face of dwindling oil reserves and a booming world population?
The peak in oil production will occur soon and sustainable energy sources like wind will not fill the gap. Nuclear energy depends on the finite resource of uranium and, which for less than one lifetime’s service will create a waste problem for hundreds of future generations to deal with. In any case it can only fill a small part of the global strategy and is fraught with danger.

Energy experts from all angles have put forward their solutions but I’ve wondered why they avoid the obvious hole in the maths. The model for global economic growth demands an ever-increasing growth in supplies of energy and natural resources that cannot be delivered. We cannot afford to burn the remaining oil to fuel growth as over half of everything we make from plastics to fertiliser are made from oil based chemicals. Already the world’s forests and oceans have been brought to the brink of devastation just to support the economic activity of the developed nations.

The argument over Renewables vs. Nuclear is meaningless while we avoid the simple truth. At its current rate of growth the world’s economies will out pace supply. Without a strict energy diet we are screwed.

And whose problem is this anyway? We use the ‘Royal We’ very easily when talking about energy. Much of the globe doesn’t have an energy problem. Over 80% of the world’s populations don’t drive cars, run air-conditioning, PC’s or mobile phones. In fact much of the developing world’s need for energy is to run industries solely built to satisfy western customers with more consumer goods.

The promise of economic development for the world’s poor is an impossible offer. There will never be enough energy to go round and besides we’re too busy gobbling it up and spewing it out to really mean it.

Our leaders and their ‘experts’ are addicts in denial. They promise diets without pain and treats to make us feel like we’re trying; windmills on petrol stations and 4×4′s that run on chip fat.