PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

BBC News24 - Dateline London - Nuclear Power

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:35 pm    Post subject: BBC News24 - Dateline London - Nuclear Power Reply with quote

On Sunday 27th Nov the magazine show Dateline London aired on BBC News24.

The format is a round-table with diverse but usually well-educated guest and usually a diverse range of topics.

Alas, the only guest who's name I recall was Simon Jenkins...

The first topic was the future of nuclear power in the UK.

It was a facinating discussion - not for the quality of the debate or any new information which arose (none did) but because of how this broad range of multi-national people approached this subject.

For such educated people, the arguments and positions seemed quite ill-informed, half baked and ofetn dogmatic.

The "fundamentalist" positions on both sides were well evident, along with debatable-statements-presented-as-fact and lots of snips of information used out of context or not in teh spirt they were meant.

Since these people are likely in the top-1% best educated people in the world and the fact they were confident enough in their background knowledge to tackle such a subject just shows the real problems we face with all issues energy-related.

I never thought energy was any more complex than any similar subject but it seems it is almost unique in the way people view it and discuss it.

With the best brains in the land appraoching this in such a way I fear that little possibility exists for a reasonable and well thought out transition from what we have now to any other energy paradigm Sad

Did anyone else see this?

It doesn't appear that this show is available from the beeb website, which is a real shame....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GD



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1099
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never, and it seems I can be thankful.

Does anybody else around here find themselves shouting "IDIOT!" and "LIAR!" at the TV a lot recently? Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Blue Peter



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1936
Location: Milton Keynes

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This link may be relevant:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/29/how-much-energy-do-we-have-/#more-962

Quote:

29/11/2005
How Much Energy Do We Have?
Filed under: climate change nuclear
Are there enough renewables to keep the lights on? The answer will be comforting to no one.


By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 29th November 2005

In one respect, Simon Jenkins is right. ?Nobody?, he complained in the Guardian last week, while laying out his case for nuclear power, ?agrees about figures?(1). As a result, ?energy policy is like Victorian medicine, at the mercy of quack remedies and snake-oil salesmen.?

There is a reason for this. As far as I can discover, reliable figures for the total volume of electricity that renewable power could supply do not yet exist. As a result, anyone can claim anything, and anyone does. The enthusiasts for renewables insist that the entire economy ? lights, heating, cars and planes ? can be powered from hydrogen produced by wind. The nuclear evangelists maintain, in Jenkins?s words, that ?even if every beauty spot in Britain were coated in windmills their contribution to the Kyoto target would be minuscule.? All of us are groping around in the dark.

So though this is not a scientific journal, and though I am not qualified to do it, I am going to attempt a rough first draft, which I hope will be challenged and refined by people with better credentials. Some of my assumptions are generous, others are conservative. This will be far from definitive and, I am afraid, quite complex, but at least, on the day the government?s energy review is announced, we will have something to argue about.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
It was a facinating discussion - not for the quality of the debate or any new information which arose (none did) but because of how this broad range of multi-national people approached this subject.

For such educated people, the arguments and positions seemed quite ill-informed, half baked and ofetn dogmatic.

The "fundamentalist" positions on both sides were well evident, along with debatable-statements-presented-as-fact and lots of snips of information used out of context or not in teh spirt they were meant.

Since these people are likely in the top-1% best educated people in the world and the fact they were confident enough in their background knowledge to tackle such a subject just shows the real problems we face with all issues energy-related.


Same thing happened on question time last week, otherwise perfectly smart people talking complete rubbish.

GD wrote:
Does anybody else around here find themselves shouting "IDIOT!" and "LIAR!" at the TV a lot recently? Twisted Evil
Often!
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DamianB
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 553
Location: Dorset

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not this one but Jenkins and Polly Toynbee on R4 which was very civilised and where they just agreed that it was a very polarised argument. A more interesting one was Andrew Simms versus Bernard Ingham, also on R4. Andrew Simms was great and clearly explained that the EROEI of nuclear would diminish to the point where CO2 emissions from the whole life cycle would be worse than gas PLUS we'd have the radioactive waste to deal with. BI made himself sound like a cretin by comparison and I shouted 'YOU F-ING IDOIT' and 'LIAR' several times.

Let's hope the nuclear (sp.? unclear) industry brings on Mr. Blobby next so that their credibility is truly shot.
_________________
"If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group