About 18 months ago I attended a conference on Energy, the platform panel consisted of I think 8 speakers all representing various sources of energy plus some people from friends of the Earth and Conservation groups.
We had Coal, Electricity, Oil, Petrol, Nuclear, Bio fuels, Wind Wave and Solar etc. there might have been more but I don't think anyone was missed out. It was a fascinating meeting addressed by real experts with some very well informed audience participation.
The audience were equipped with small computer devices to vote on questions, just like 'ask the audience' on who wants to be a millionaire, these votes produced a remarkable consensus among everyone there.
Some quite predictable like conservation ( everyone for) pollution (all against) At the end of the meeting the big question was put.
'which method should Scotland take to secure our energy future and comply with pollution issues'
Several combinations were put and one suggestion was 'a combination of all' This won the biggest majority of all votes cast that day by a considerable number. That is to say that almost all delegates agreed that Nuclear had a part to play in supplying our future energy needs.
The Scottish Govt. are posturing over this issue, they intend to prevent any Nuclear stations in Scotland knowing that we will get Nuclear powered energy from elsewhere, this is more hypocrisy from them.
They have got this wrong and I think the Scottish people will not back their stance, in fact I will watch closely and so should you for the 'U' turn when it inevitably comes.
Salmond (the spiv) has already accepted that Scotland will accept Nuclear waste but continues to try to milk populism on this.
When his lips move you know he's etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I read recently about wind power and its complete unreliability.
There is an EU county (Belgium I think) where when the wind does not blow it imports its electricity from Germany but when the wind does blow it has to export it out quickly as it produced something like 300% of the capacity of its national grid.
So in a wind powered country we will either be sitting in darkness or earnestly pumping electricity to England and Ulster in an attempt not to melt the cables and pylons. Wave power is indirect wind power so there may not be the oversupply issue but there will be the reliability issue.
Only tidal and nuclear are the reliable power sources and we need to start building them lest we become dependant on other states that do. And having Russia control vast gas imports into the EU has worked out so well for everyone has it not?
On the subject of Nuclear Energy, the government's preferred supplier is a company called EDF.
Perhaps you should look to see which prime minister's brother was recently appointed Head of Corporate Communications.
(Anonymous) 13:45 -
I tend to favour the decision of the conference but, I can’t claim to be an expert unlike some SNP populists.
I think Russia are doing what all countries do to maximise their assets.
America after all have had several recent wars and invaded countries because of oil which 'isn't' theirs and Iran looks to be next.
(Serpico) 13:51
These Brown brothers are a devious bunch -
The country is in your debt for exposing them. And to think all the media missed this, well done that man !
I would challenge your acceleration that the US went to war for oil. The current sky-high price of oil seems to indicate that "cheap gas" was not the agenda.
(Anonymous) 14:30
- Kuwait, the Gulf, Iraq, Israel, Iran. Nothing to do with oil, it’s all just a coincidence right ?
But the gas is not cheap. Who would go to war to ramp up the price of the lifeblood of its industry?
It has cost more to prosecute the initial war in Iraq than Iraq has in exploitable reserves. The sums just don't add up.
I would suggest to you that when the Americans went into Kuwait it was because the Iraqis had invaded in order to effect "regime change" something I thought you felt strongly about.
I am not sure the US has ever invaded Israel before but I may be wrong if you are certain it should be on that list.
(Anonymous) 15:01 -
Well it’s one or the other, either the Americans are protecting their oil interests or they are defending democracy, I say it’s the former, the latter is risible.
Israel is America’s bulwark in the middle east and on a constant war footing, did I really have to spell that out or were you hoping I’d got it wrong ?
I personally thought they went to war for the other cause. Regime Change.
After all, before 2003 the biggest killer of Muslims was Saddam.
How can you honestly think that when people were banding about the figures for oil against the figures for war spending that anyone could believe that this was a war for cheap oil? And then when the war was prosecuted the price of oil went up. And still you claim it was a war for oil. This is little more than doublethink on your part.
How can this have been a war for oil when the prices are now so high?
You tossed Israel in with the other names there I just assumed you could not go a post on the Middle East without blaming it on the Zions. I appear to have been right.
(Anonymous) 15:23 -
This might be a shock to you but a hell of a lot of people think America’s involvement in the middle east is about oil, the price during such turmoil is not stable but the Americans will control the region.
Israel ? Very predictable, Israel is the one of the world’s mightiest military forces, armed and financed by America, able to persecute Palestinians despite world condemnation.
America couldn’t hope for a better friend to protect it’s interests.
This ’Zions’ business is really not an argument, what about all the Jews who agree with me ?
Was it a local government conference or something organised by the government?
redwing - can't recall but it was chaired by the BBC political editor Brian taylor.
redwing - ?
from wisconsin, USA here. Oil prices are high, but here in the USA, gas is still dramatically undervalued. Nobody will likely know the true reasons for my and my fellow patriots tax money being wasted along with my piers lives in Iraq. On one hand, maintaining access to fossil enegy sources in the Mid East will pay off, especially for those directly involved in the industry. The vast majority of the cost for this war has been put upon poeple other than these war profiteers. Just wait to see what happens next if you think oil is high prices today...
To criticize wind enegy shows a fundamental ignorance. Changes in output levels will ultimately be taken advantage of through storage in hydrogen "batteries".
Turning off the lights and other methods of conservation are tremendously important, and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic or invested in utilities.
Uranium is a finite resource that will run out sooner than planned, and we will be left with wwaste and nuclear weapons.
(Anonymous) 14:13
I think the war along with other wars was about oil and American influence.
“To criticize wind enegy shows a fundamental ignorance” - You could well be right I’m not an expert, that’s why I didn’t criticise wind energy.
I believe that we will utilise nuclear as part of the solution.
Spot On Councillor. I've been researching this subject for a while, partly for work and partly out of personal interest. All experts agree on a combination -though there is some debate on how that should be made up. The SNP are way behind the times on this. I've put up a lot of my research and some useful links over on my website.
I don't understand enough about science but if you can come up with something to stop all this rain you'll get my vote!
Ashley - Fight global warming.
Post a Comment