Friends of the Earth have just won a decision [to them ]on not to build a new nuclear station?

Question

but do they really understand that their children and grandchildren will probably have no electricity or gas or coal? fuel is running out and fuel keeps the world going so we have to have wind farms, nuclear, solar panels etc. So why do all these different factions keep protesting ? We're going back to the dark ages slowly but how many of them drive cars? Run computors? Have central heating? Have electric in their houses? Every one of them I bet. They just don't want future genarations to have it all. When every member of Greenpeace or F>O>T>E is living in a house with no electricity, no gas, no generators, riding a bicycle to get around and recycling everything then I will take notice of them. Otherwise I think they're people who just like to disrupt for the sake of it.

Answer 1

Quite silly.



The biggest source of electricity that does not add CO2 to the air is Nuclear power.Conservation can only go so far and solar and wind power have yet to become effective anywhere near the level of nuclear power. Hydropower can no longer be expanded much.



Our country could easily stop burning coal and natural gas to generate electricity if it was replaced by nuclear power. That would not only stop the greenhouse gasses from current electricity and make it actually possible to generate electricity for electric powered or hydrogen powered cars WITHOUT BURNING COAL and adding more CO2 to the air.



Solar and wind are nice but the country can't afford to make enough (with current technology) of it to meet our energy needs even if we conserve. On the other hand Nuclear power is not unreasonably expensive.



Sure Greenpeace/FoTE may be basing their argument on hearings but the main point is that as an organization they are against many of the technologies that can help reduce the damage to the planet 6.5 billion people do using current technology.

Answer 2

FOTE: We have to stop our dependence on foreign oil.

ME: OK, let us look for oil at home. We now have the technology to do it cleanly and safely.

FOTE: NO! That will harm the habitat of the wildlife.

ME: When we put in the Alaskan pipeline, you said the same thing, and the Caribou ended up loving the pipeline so much that they actually made more caribou.

FOTE: That's not fair, you are using facts. We "listen with our hearts", so our intentions are better than yours.

ME: I give up. Next subject, lets build a new Nuclear plant to supply us electricity so we don't need as much fossil fuels.

FOTE: Haven't you seen "The China Syndrome". It was made by all the people in hollywood who have advanced knowledge of science and know what's best for us.

ME: It was a movie.

FOTE: Why don't we have windmills and solar farms.

ME: OK, lets put one up over there behind Teddy Kennedy's house. Oh I forgot. He went to court to stop us, because the windmills might kill a seagull. Oh, and it ruined his ocean-front view.

FOTE: But he CARES!

ME: Yea, like he cared about the woman drowning in his car.

Answer 3

Read the news report properly.



Greenpeace's complaint, and thus the court case was over the fact that the government had made the recommendation to build the new nuclear power stations without proper and fair and full public consultation.



The point of a fair and full public consultation is to let everyone know the facts as they are and so that whatever decision is made after that consultation (be it to build 10, 20 or 100 more nuclear stations or none at all), is made with everyone knowing the reasons and arguments behind it.



The ruling was that this public consulation was not done fairly, and that interest groups such as Greenpeace had not been given reasonable opportunity to study the case at hand and respond. The white paper that was published to recommend the building of new generation nuclear power stations was also deemed misleading.



The case wasn't so much about the power stations themselves, but on how the decision that was taken to recommend them be built was made. That decision was made unfairly and by misleading means.



*******

The case wasn't about the pros and cons of nuclear power. The case was about the transparency of the government in making decisions. It's about letting people know what the facts are and not by spin. It's about people being in full knowledge about what's going on rather than spin.



From that point of view, I'm glad Greenpeace had won the case.

Answer 4

Nuclear potential vegetation are expensive to construct on earth. that that they had be prohibitively expensive to construct on the moon. we will be in a position to move the flexibility again utilising microwaves, besides the undeniable fact that it would basically cost too a lot. There would also be the problem of having the nuclear gasoline rods there. ought to you imagine the an infection if the motorized vehicle wearing them exploded on the way up? I do imagine we would construct some type of image voltaic stations in orbit around the solar to beam again to the earth as microwaves. that that they had be in a position to assemble fairly a lot of image voltaic potential 24/7 and be thoroughly sparkling and secure.

Answer 5

Read their literature. They are not for human beings(you can say that is silly but it is what they are saying) they want humanity to get off earth and let it be pristine with jungles, animals and no people. Most don't live the way they preach but they got a lot of money, so I guess its their way of absolving themselves from past sins.

You can find a few diehards in Bekeley or SF many moved to Oregon. I remember when the hippies took over Haight Ashbury to live in those victorian homes with only peace and love. They left the homes so trashed they had to be hulled out and rebuilt, the houses had trash heaps and the plumbing wasn't working ...filthy places, guess electricity wasn't on their minds either. bleh!

Answer 6

Friends of the earth (so called) are sadly mistaken people who either can't or refuse to see a complete picture. They act for what they see now with little concern for the future of the planet or for its inhabitants. They appear to live in a dream world based somewhere in the past and steadfastly (unfortunately) believe that if they shout loud enough everyone else will conform to their outmoded Ideals.



Nuclear energy is the way forward in a nuclear age, clean, cheap and efficient. Yes we do have a problem disposing of spent fissionable material at the present, but with scientific advances this problem could be eliminated in the future.



I prefer to look at these advances as part of evolution to which we will all adapt just as we will adapt to global warming as (and if) it affects us.



Unfriends of the earth, as they should be called, just serve to hinder technical, scientific and evolutionary progress and then try to tell us that they are doing it in our name for our benefit. Crawl back into your holes and let the rest of us get on with life.

Answer 7

The Greenies are determined to block all development of any kind of sensible energy in the USA. They use their "enviroprotective" agenda to damage the USA in every way they can since they regard capitalism and anything that supports it as the Great Satan. Their goal is to make energy so expensive that the government will have to nationalize all power production and then the bureaucrats will have total control over the population. It is just another example of the closet socialists and marxists tireless efforts to take over and run everything like they do in Cuba and North Korea. BTW, almost all of the political contributions of the 'greenies' go to the democratic party...

Go figure.

Answer 8

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm



As others have said it was not FoE but Greenpeace.

It was not about nuclear power, but that the UK government had not consulted on the issues about energy security, despite promising it.



The gov had not encouraged debate and understanding.

They had specifically not addressed the cost of building and decommisioning nuclear powerstations and what to do with the waste.



Without addressing our current addiction to cheap energy, consumerism and infinite growth, building more powerstations of any sort is just pushing us further into unsustainable overshoot of the planets carrying capacity - and resulting crash.

see Club of Rome report from 1970s.



there is no Planet B

Answer 9

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646

Sorry Girl but Wake Up. If your attention span can Handle it.x : )

Answer 10

Loud round of applause from me