Canvassing Green Party opinions on nuclear power

[pluralist]

If you are a Green party member or supporter...

(1) Strongly in favour
(2) Generally in favour, but with reservations.
(3) Generally opposed, but may be open to changing opinion
(4) Strongly opposed

There are shorter names for these options:

(1) Strongly in favour That would be PD.
(2) Generally in favour, but with reservations. FG
(3) Generally opposed, but may be open to changing opinion FF
(4) Strongly opposed
(5) Undecided Labour

These are hardly 'shorter name for these options'. I really have no particular interest in PD

Number 4 would probably be Sinn Féin and... Any Green Party members who are not in the number 4 camp would seem to be in the wrong party.

I would have been under the impression that the Green Party .

Then again, the current version of the GP seems to be very different from what its principles and policies would suggest.

Right. Your own opinion would be....?

[soubresauts]

Right. Your own opinion would be....?

I'd be totally opposed. The Government's decision to abandon its nuclear plan (to Dessie O'Malley's chagrin) was a wise and important one.

[pluralist]

Right. Your own opinion would be....?

I'd be totally opposed. The Government's decision to abandon its nuclear plan (to Dessie O'Malley's chagrin) was a wise and important one.

Thanks for your response.

[ibis]

Somewhere between 1 and 2. I suspect most people with a geological background would be similarly disposed.

[Pidge]

Tis worrying that some GP members here are still sitting on the bench with this one.

Can't agree with that.

One of the best things about being in the GP is that people are well-informed in the diversity of their opinion.

Indeed. I really dislike the attitude that this is a central tenet, where discussion is met with the "you're in the wrong party" ************************e.

Politically, I'm interested in what I think the best response to problems is. As it stands, the Green Party presents the best response to climate change, planning, ethics and a variety of other issues in this country. That's why I'm in it. I'll evaluate ideas on their own basis, not on the basis of what some people in the mid-eighties decided my principles should be. If the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the costs, then I'm in favour of it - regardless of the historical origins of my party. I'm not sure if they do, but I'd rather find out from people who, y'know, have sources and approached the problem without knowing the conclusion they were about to reach.

[joel]

Our untapped wind resources, north and south of the border, are equivalent to many times the total output of our current power suppliers and of course will not run out.

Yes, and I'm surprised you didn't mention wave and tidal power, especially after the feature in yesterday's Independent, Strangford Lough and all that.

Tidal power is not sustainable because it is slowing down the rotation of the Earth.

Prize for the daftest quote!

[Pidge]

I'm in kind of a crabby mood, so forgive the tone...

1. Will Nuclear Solve Climate Change? The answer is nope! We would see very little redutions in emmisions, the most optimistic say 5%, if we went nuclear and then people dont count the vast emmisions from uranium mining and transportation.

Will banning incandescent lightbulbs solve climate change? The answer is nope!

Will creating a culture independent of cars solve climate change? The answer is nope!

The question isn't whether one thing will "solve" climate change, it's whether it'll make a significant difference. 5% is quite significant, and some of the reductions mentioned in wikipedia page are quite drastic.

2. Can nuclear energy solve the energy crisis? The answer is nope! Nuclear is not a sustainable form of energy as Uranium isjust like any other fossil fuel, ie it is running out and fast! Thus to indorse nuclear power is not solving the problem for future generations. We are instead distracting ourselves from implementing the real solution in the form of clean, green, sustainable energy.

That's something a little more interesting. What I'm interested in is finding out when fissile material runs out, at current rates. I've seen figures from all over the place, pointing to totally different outcomes.

Our untapped wind resources, north and south of the border, are equivalent to many times the total output of our current power suppliers and of course will not run out.

Well, they might... Still, that's kind of redundant, since we don't have the ability to tap all of that energy.

We could lead the way in Europe simply because of our geographical location. We should be following the example of Scotland where they have ruled out nuclear and are fast becoming the most successful wind energy country in Europe.

Still, why is arguing for wind power an argument against nuclear? I just don't get it.

[Eddiepops]

I'd be a 3.5/4. i approached the subject with an open mind, examining whether it could help save us from climate change as many attested and found it hopelessly lacking, for many of the reasons above. If we're going to spend such a preposterous amount of money on moving over to a different energy system, it seems criminal or insane for it not to be a renewable one. Replacing expensive fossil fuels with an even more expensive non renewable system that will have to be replaced itself in a generation is clearly ridiculous. It's centralised, I question its efficiency, I have little to no hope in the private sector to run it safely or efficiently and I think if we build them now they will be the public policy decision the next generation looks back at in horror and wonder that we could make such mistakes - the public housing towerblocks of the 2060's if you will.

In regards to the carbon emissions from mining, construction and transport, etc. I think there is some variation in the statistics out there, but the ones that I see and that I trust are from National Geographic; they did an article on nuclear a few years ago which had comparative stats on nuclear, coal, oil, gas, solar and wind, and nuclear beat all the others on full life cycle by a country mile (yes, that included fuel mining, refining, transport, plant construction, and everything else). The only thing that came close was hydro and wind. I'm not making an argument for nukes, just correcting an oft repeated allacy. Know ur enemy and all that!

Out of interest pluralist, where do you stand on it? Should we be anticipating some controversial motions at conference?!

[joel]

I'd be a 3.5/4. i approached the subject with an open mind, examining whether it could help save us from climate change as many attested and found it hopelessly lacking, for many of the reasons above. If we're going to spend such a preposterous amount of money on moving over to a different energy system, it seems criminal or insane for it not to be a renewable one. Replacing expensive fossil fuels with an even more expensive non renewable system that will have to be replaced itself in a generation is clearly ridiculous. It's centralised, I question its efficiency, I have little to no hope in the private sector to run it safely or efficiently and I think if we build them now they will be the public policy decision the next generation looks back at in horror and wonder that we could make such mistakes - the public housing towerblocks of the 2060's if you will.

In regards to the carbon emissions from mining, construction and transport, etc. I think there is some variation in the statistics out there, but the ones that I see and that I trust are from National Geographic; they did an article on nuclear a few years ago which had comparative stats on nuclear, coal, oil, gas, solar and wind, and nuclear beat all the others on full life cycle by a country mile (yes, that included fuel mining, refining, transport, plant construction, and everything else). The only thing that came close was hydro and wind. I'm not making an argument for nukes, just correcting an oft repeated allacy. Know ur enemy and all that!

Out of interest pluralist, where do you stand on it? Should we be anticipating some controversial motions at conference?!

What are you talking about! - wind and hydro and solar must produce easily the least Co2.

[Eddiepops]

What are you talking about! - wind and hydro and solar must produce easily the least Co2.

I know, no one was more surprised than I was. It basically has to do with the huge amount of power produced by the average nuclear power plant, compared to the low yield of wind and the intensive energy cost of building both turbines and hyrdo. You can have a look at the article I linked, or if you trust wikipedia have a look here

The difference between nuclear and wind and hydro was tiny, but nonetheless it was the least carbon intensive of the current options. I'd like to stress that I still don't support it, the other downsides far make it untenable and illogical.