Britain gets it - why don't we?

[Red Panda]

The only real solution to energy dependency is renewable energy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2792731.stm

UK unveils plans for greener energy

 
The government wants to focus on renewable energy 
The government is to unveil plans for a switch towards cleaner forms of energy, and away from fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The long-awaited Energy White Paper, to be published on Monday, will announce plans to radically cut the pollution linked to global warming.

It will suggest reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere to 60% of 1990 levels by 2050.

It is also expected to announce the running down of nuclear power stations, which currently supply about 25% of UK electricity.

It will instead encourage renewable power such as wind and wave energy.

The paper will also suggest that 10% of electricity should come from renewables by 2010 - up from 3% now - with an "aspirational goal" of 20% by 2020.

 

 

[My Higher Self]

I think its a great initiative on their part.

The reason I think it will be a difficult goal to reach is because one: They haven't ruled out nuclear power altogether....with that as a fall back the push for new technology won't be quite as great. And two: because consumer electricity bills will increase up to 15% and corprate may increase as much as %25. Now that may not seem like much...but that would mean that in addition to your bill being 15% more, now your groceries cost more, your gas costs more, your internet access costs more, everything you buy will cost more driving inflation up at an alarming rate.

Just something to think about because a raise in electricity prices like that will effect the price of everthing we buy.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against cleaner solutions, I just don't think its as easy as switching power supplies midstride.....

 

[Lacmeh]

Nuclear power is cheap, because the calculations are frauds. They don´t include the cost for transport and disposal of the waste. If this would be included, the prices of power from nuclear plants would rise far more than just 15 or so %

 

[My Higher Self]

Today at 09:06 AM Lacmeh said this in Post #3

Nuclear power is cheap, because the calculations are frauds. They don´t include the cost for transport and disposal of the waste. If this would be included, the prices of power from nuclear plants would rise far more than just 15 or so %

If its not included, who pays for it?

 

[Lacmeh]

Of course the taxpayer.

Another example is the new Czechian plant, they want to get into full running. With all the building and equipment costs it will never ever produce enough MWatt to generate more income than the initial costs were. Even if you discount the costs for waste disposal and transportation.

 

[My Higher Self]

So the government foots the bill for transport and waste disposal?

 

[Lacmeh]

In oversimplification, yes.
It is a bit more complex with the whole issue who´s owning what, but in essence the taxpayers fund quite a large junk of the nuclear industry.

 

[hotknikkels]

all us british guys are waiting to see what really happens!!!

 

[gwyyn]

Wow people who use nucleur power don't pay a small fee towards transport of waste.

Here's all the extra charges on my bill

Res Ltg Svc
Fuel Cost Factor
transition cost Factor
Pur Pwr Cost Recov
and of course Sales Tax.

All of that on top of what I have to pay for the wattage I use during the month.

 

[O'Mara]

Today at 08:51 AM Red Panda said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=672676#post672676)

The only real solution to energy dependency is renewable energy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2792731.stm

UK unveils plans for greener energy

 
The government wants to focus on renewable energy 
The government is to unveil plans for a switch towards cleaner forms of energy, and away from fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The long-awaited Energy White Paper, to be published on Monday, will announce plans to radically cut the pollution linked to global warming.

It will suggest reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere to 60% of 1990 levels by 2050.

California will only allow vehicles with zero emmissions to be sold within it's borders as of 2009. This will put a lot of pressure on manufacturers.

Have any European States made similiar statutes?

It is also expected to announce the running down of nuclear power stations, which currently supply about 25% of UK electricity.

Why?

It will instead encourage renewable power such as wind and wave energy.

We really need to find ways to make those two forms less environmentally intrusive. Wind mills kill thousands of birds and wave energy destroys and/or changes marine habitat.

The paper will also suggest that 10% of electricity should come from renewables by 2010 - up from 3% now - with an "aspirational goal" of 20% by 2020.

Just so that you know, Red Panda, you should read the articles on www.epa.gov. I think that they will make you feel better about the US policies and efforts to be more environmentally friendly.

I am an active conservationist, and I, personally, am quite pleased with steps the US has taken over the last two years (especially).

There si still a lot of room for improvement, but I thik that the US is under-rated, environmentally speaking.

 

[Aurelius]

Environmentalism, eh?

California will only allow vehicles with zero emmissions to be sold within it's borders as of 2009. This will put a lot of pressure on manufacturers.

Is there any guarantee that the deadline will be met? I seem to remember that this form of legislation has a sad history of failed deadlines and legal challenges from industry leaders, regardless of the country in which it is formulated.

There is also this: http://www.pirg.org/uspirg/reports/faking.htm

Have any European States made similiar statutes?

Yes, they have. The AECC reports:

• 
  "The 1996 European Union regulations reduce the emissions per kilometre from petrol cars by 96% when compared to 1970 levels, with further cuts in 2000 and 2005.
  
  Reductions in NOx and particulate emissions are being introduced for heavy-duty diesel vehicles that are expected to require particulate traps and NOx reduction technologies from 2005."

For additional information, refer to the EU Parliament's Directive 2001/100/EC.

We really need to find ways to make those two forms less environmentally intrusive. Wind mills kill thousands of birds and wave energy destroys and/or changes marine habitat.

When compared to oil spills, wind power hardly kills anything. I certainly don't hear people complaining about the hideous loss of bird life at wind farms. I don't hear about "wind power spills" off the coast of Spain, or "wind slicks" which pollute the pristine habitats of various endangered species. So I don't believe that this is a legitimate objection.

This said, I agree with you that the impact of tidal power is certainly a valid concern, and it's not a problem that is easily resolved. Your average energy conservationist lights up (no pun intended) at the thought of tidal power, while your average ecologist starts pulling his hair out at the thought of wildly fluctuating currents and horrendous damage to coastal waterlife.

Geothermal power is a better option, as Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have demonstrated.

 

[O'Mara]

How would I know if the requirements were met?
Do you know someone who has a crystal ball or are you just a pessimist. Legislation is a big step, and exactly what people demand of our government.


As for windmills killing wildlife, take the Californian Altamont for example. Thousands of birds are killed by those windmills every year. This causes a severe environmental hardship on the area because of problems controlling the mouse and insect populations.

Anytime you eliminate one species from an ecosystem, you destroy an important piece of a puzzle.

I don't know how you couldn't hear about the damage done by windmills. It seems like it would be an easy fix to me to just put some protective wiring around the props or use some sort of sonic device to deter birds from landing/nesting on them.