ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

What rank hypocrisy when the US together with Britain are threatening to bomb Iran to smithereens for pursuing a nuclear power for commercial use on one hand and then going ahead with plans to build more nuclear power plants on their home soil.

The trouble is that Nuclear power is still too dangerous for our already battered environment and is not the answer to the inevitable depletion of fossil fuel. Renewable energy however costly is the way forward.

No wonder Iran does not take the West seriously.

For Scotland's first big hydro-power scheme since Britain 'went nuclear'
see: The water transfer tunnel broke through yesterday and it will be on stream next year (supplying 250,000 homes).

with ref to the nuclear power plants there are serious concerns over long term storage of the radioactive waste.
As there still appears to be an abundance of coal worldwide, do we not have the technology to produce clean-air coal-fired power stations instead of Nuclear or dependance on natural gas.

New Clear?

Can someone tell me how much CO2 is generated in building a nuclear power station?
How large is the supply of fuel?
Is there a safe and guaranteed source like Cornwall?
Or is it mined in 'stable' Africa and we are the only customer!

86% would feel safer ...if Nuclear power stations were constructed deep under ground in old coalmines.... explosions can be contained and absorbed... 74% believe most of London's power...is generated in military subterranean areas ...

Compressed oscillation difference generators are also interesting to study...

as are Dark power photovoltaics...

iniquitous systematics

and Submerged water wheels

zig zag multi-tumble water falls

and ...balloon accelerated generators

...have all been discovered in Bournemouth as interesting subjects..for discussion...and prototype testing investment???

Cameron's 'back to work' initiative is a brave idea and I applaud him for having the guts to suggest it. Labour has cynically created a 'vote bank' of lazy loafers who live on State benefits and who will happily vote Labour to see it continues. The 'something for nothing' lifestyle is lazy and selfish and someone has to stop it -
once again it will be the Conservatives who have to administer the medicine.

By The Power of annoyed mediums...

subject: focus ~ beyond steam ...circulating microwave activated propulsive vapourised mixes...no combustion only drive

....as mixes are critically expansion activated by zqictradz signals guided by systems developed for TV and microwave cooking...

...but recirculated to be activated again and again and again...

More powerful than the power of ignorance and irresponsibility???

the nuclear power debate

Zac Goldenberg in tonights debate deserves all my compliments.
I am Ecologist as well, so I understand how hard is it sometimes to remain the bright example but have to admit I was honestly impressed with his profesional behaviour and to the point speach during the whole discusion.
Wish all of our MPs behave so calmly and inteligent.

on the other hand maybe next time would suit the purpose more, to speak more loudly between those old wolfs :}
thx LB

Jeremy Paxman asked several times, "is there any alternative to nuclear power?", but no one came up with any definite answer. The report preceding the debate focussed on the shortcomings of nuclear power rather than providing any serious alternatives. The lasting impression is that there is no suitable alternative in terms of capacity and output, despite all the hot air and protestations that steamed out of that debate.

There are many viable non-nuclear alternatives. We are already aware of the shortcomings of onshore windpower. So we'll discard onshore windpower along with the other undesirables such as dirty coal and leaky nuclear.

The viable alternatives are:
1. Hydroelectric power:
Only recently, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ trumpeted the opening of the hydroelectric power station at Loch Ness, which the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ purports to be able to supply the electricity needs of a quarter of a million households, or a city the size of Glasgow. Should Scotland decide to go its own way, there are very many mountains in Cumbria, Northumberland and North Yorkshire that are equally capable of providing hydro-electric power of such capacity. Given an estimated total of 26 million households in the UK, we only need 104 of these to supply 100% of the domestic electricity needs of the UK.
2.Wave Power:
Wave turbines on trial off the Hebrides were reported to be able to supply the energy at a much greater output and consistent capacity than existing wind turbines.Trials off Northern California show that a single plant consisting of 8 buoys is capable of supplying the electricity needs of 1500 homes. We only need 17,334 of these 8-buoy plants to supply 100% of the domestic electricity needs of the UK.
3. Tidal Power:
The proposed Severn Barrage across the Bristol Channel is purported to be able to supply 5% of the energy needs of the entire UK.
The tidal farm off Lynmouth is claimed to be able to supply 5,500 homes. We only need 4728 of such tidal farms to supply 100% of UK's domestic electricity needs.
4. Offshore Wind Power:
Wind Power is now a tried and tested technology. Built offshore and far from people's backyards, they provide an unobjectionable sustainable and commercial ly viable alternative.

Instead of an undisclosed number of new nuclear power stations at a colossal cost, why don't we demand 104 new hydro-electric power stations, 4728 tidal farms, or 17,334 wave plants?

With the Government announcement of support for a new programme of nuclear power stations, the sad thing is, that it comes as no surprise. There is only partial mention in the media, of the catalogue of lies, deceit and blatant misinformation with which the government and the nuclear industry have populated this latest re-run of the 2006 review. Held at the order of the high court because of the inherent dishonesty of the previous attempt, this one has been branded by the Nuclear Consultation Group, as relying on β€œcontentious information” and β€œsleight of hand”.

Supporters of nuclear power must now realise that they are supporting a dishonest process and one that will not meet the needs of people, the economy or our commitments to combating climate change. This is pure greed for a share of government guaranteed largesse at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. This is extortion and theft from future generations, which will be unwillingly forced to pay for the unsolved problem of radioactive toxic waste. In any sane society, this would be deemed a criminal act but is now accepted common practice amongst government and nuclear corporations.

As someone said β€œnow I can rent my properties at extortionate rates to nuclear contract workers”, I hope their children and grandchildren will be very proud of them and their legacy to society.

Very interesting coverage indeed of both the U.S. nomination campaigns and the Kenyan political turmoil. Well done, Newsnight. Great straight-forward, serious on the ground reportage.

The debate about nuclear energy and other options was interesting too, but slipped momentarily into panto when Jeremy suggested climate change is a national emergency and the greatest potential catastophe facing us all.

Has yet another erstwhile agile and independent mind become bludgeoned into submission by the most basic of propagandist strategies of Repetition Ad Infinitum Creates Truth? Jeremy Paxman punch drunk and addled with the absurd alarm-mongering propaganda? The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ policy of Repeat Anything Often Enough And Eventually People Will Succumb No Matter The Facts seems to have bagged another advocate for the Man Made Climate Change Crisis drivel. A pity.

Very interesting coverage indeed of both the U.S. nomination campaigns and the Kenyan political turmoil. Well done, Newsnight. Great straight-forward, serious on the ground reportage.

The debate about nuclear energy and other options was interesting too, but slipped momentarily into panto when Jeremy suggested climate change is a national emergency and the greatest potential catastophe facing us all.

Has yet another erstwhile agile and independent mind become bludgeoned into submission by the most basic of propagandist strategies of Repetition Ad Infinitum Creates Truth? Jeremy Paxman punch drunk and addled with the absurd alarm-mongering propaganda? The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ policy of Repeat Anything Often Enough And Eventually People Will Succumb No Matter The Facts seems to have bagged another advocate for the Man Made Climate Change Crisis drivel. A pity.

The 'national emergency' of climate change does not refer to the weather. Global warming is an international phenomena. The national climate of concern here can only be the political one. Or possibly the economic one. Or the energy availability one. Climate change must be specific to the phenomena it is related to, and the weather is global and therefore international.

I found Jeremy Paxman's manner of questioning Bilawal Bhutto Zardari unfortunate, to put it mildly. Mr Paxman didn't sound anything like so smug last Friday while he was reading a 'news headline' about Britney Spears, an episode that led this Newsnight viewer to wonder whether our loyalty to Newsnight's 'values' isn't sometimes more principled than Newsnight's. If Mr Paxman were someone other than Mr Paxman he might consider taking himself to task on both counts.

Cameron's 'back to work' initiative is a brave idea and I applaud him for having the guts to suggest it. Labour has cynically created a 'vote bank' of lazy loafers who live on State benefits and who will happily vote Labour to ensure it continues. The 'something for nothing' lifestyle is lazy and selfish and someone has to stop it -
once again it will be the Conservatives who have to administer the medicine.

R Brewing - This surely tells one all any sensible person really needs to know about the PPP and Pakistani 'democratic' politics in general?

That anyone can hesitate in treating this effrontery as anything other than contemptible is just a very sad sign of our times. He's 19 years old. What this should do is destroy any remaining credibility that the PPP had. That people can shamelessly behave this way is a sure sign of how little they really understand, and that *anyone* (including Newsnight blog moderators) may be wary of voicing such criticism helps nobody given that the demonstrable facts. Censorship here only serves to promulgate and reinforce this behaviour. It helps nobody, neither young Bhutto nor the Pakistani people.

Similarly, in the context of Kenya, it doesn't really matter how one translates 'majimbo'. If the Kenyan political class pretends otherwise either they're pretty stupid or just corrupt and contemptible (I tend to opt for the latter although like other viewers, one has to ask how these politicians have the gall to say what they do. It must work in kenya I guess.

Given the basic Kenyan demographics (and Pakistan is only about 10 points ahead in mean IQ), if one has to resort to having the population choose between a banana (yes) and an orange (no) symbol (because of the low literacy level) in the referendum over the adoption of a new constitution which this current mess derives from, one can be sure that most of Kenya's population won't have the cognitive ability to fully comprehend the basics (see link at end), never mind the finer legal points of what the constitution (e.g. land reform, President/PM power sharing etc) implies.

Multi-party 'democracy' under such demographic conditions is just a cynical licence for some to mislead and exploit 'the people', as the requisite conditions for a truly responsible, representative, mandate from the electorate can not exist. This is why so many 'authoritarian' countries are so wary of the West exporting democracy, they rightly see it as subversive and exploitative.

Even the UK government doesn't trust its electorate to responsibly vote yes or no over the Lisbon Treaty (because of the, no doubt contrived, complexities/opacity). So, why was the Kenyan constitution ever put to the electorate and why do we expect multi-party democracy to fare much better in Pakistan? It demonstrably doesn't work. Like everywhere else, these politicians just prey on political correctness induced guilt, which makes the naive think there's no genetic diversity in cognitive ability (there is in height and many other biological characteristics, and there is within other species such as dogs, cats, horses, so why no genetic based diversity in human cognitive ability?). It is just dogma that all groups, wherever they are, are the same and equally educable (how could they possibly be given all of the physical gene barriers which have operated for thousands of years?). Where is the evidence?

Kenya had a one-party system for good reason. Its population isn't ready for multi-party democracy. Those who say otherwise are, almost by definition, corrupt in suggesting otherwise. Mugabe has such support throughout Africa because it knows Africa isn't ready for democracy. Not long ago China told Nixon the same about democracy in China. It's inevitable that Africa would look to China (or Islam) for support.

Paxman was right to point out the feudal nature of the PPP leadership dynasty, but let's be frank, the young Bhutto's responses were not laudable, they were risible. Anyone with any sense (and he should have some if he is going to be Oxbridge educated), knows that if one is asked to do something patently stupid, in the interests of all concerned, one should decline the offer. How Paxman remains tolerant under this daily barrage of nonsense is admirable, but I guess he has his 'managers'.

/blogs/newsnight/2008/01/monday_7_january_2008.html

As soon as I saw Jeremy (50/10) saying "Are you responsible for organising this shambles?" I knew it was going to be good!!!!

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is nothing other than a puppet who has rehearsed his lines.

In an article by Jemima Khan in The Times on Benazir Bhutto,
Source:
β€œOf all the accusations levelled against her, including oligarchic looting of the Treasury ($1.5 billion according to Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau), political expediency and nepotism (her husband, known as "Mr Ten Per Cent" was made Minister of Investments), the most irrefutable was that she did almost nothing for Pakistan during her two terms in power.
As the first democratically elected female leader of a Muslim country her potential was limitless, but she never even tried to repeal the Hudood Ordinances, Pakistan's heinous laws that make no distinction between rape and adultery.
In fact, during her first, 20-month-long premiership she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Instead, she kowtowed to the mullahs. During her second term, her government backed the Taliban takeover in Kabul, providing them with military and financial support.
She also made deals with the military, whom she despised. The PPP, which Benazir inherited from her father and the only grass roots national party that Pakistan has ever known, became the Bhutto party and was run like a monarchy.”

Jeremy quite rightly pointed out that the PPP was handing it around like a piece of family furniture.

I suspect the fate of Bilawal will be the same as his grandfather and mother

Globalisation is a reality, to a greater extent in the private sector than the public sector. Coal consumed is no longer from local mines, and nuclear fuel is similarly obtained from the global market. All power stations are regulated by suitably structured organisations in accordance with all the necessary national and international safety procedures and checks. A Swot analysis should be used to provide information to the decision making process of power generation encompassing a necessity to provide energy security to maintain national functioning with a reduction as far as is practicable of the impacts to the environment during plant operation and waste disposal. Once all these considerations have been made, an energy policy can be formulated to optimise the choices to be made. In the twenty first century, British power stations are no longer at the mercy of the likes of Arthur Scargill, although the increasing cost of coal on the global market and the global concern of climate change has made fossil fuels a less favourable option and nuclear power more favourable. Requiring no raw materials from the international markets, renewable energies provide excellent energy security in terms of energy source. Nuclear power provides energy security from the basis that it does not need to rely on the unpredictability of the wind or sun. Geothermal and Tidal power are virtually guaranteed and provide the best energy security of them all. Why is there no efforts being made into the use of these sources of energy ?

R Brewing - Surely this tells one pretty much all that anyone needs to know about the PPP and Pakistani 'democratic' politics?

That anyone could hesitate in treating this effrontery as anything other than contemptible is just a sad sign of our times. It's akin to not reprimanding children for bad behaviour because doing so would upset them and cause a fuss. It's meant to upset them!

What this should do is destroy any remaining credibility that the PPP had. That the PPP can shamelessly behave this way is a sure sign of how little those comprising really understand about the nature of democracy, and *anyone* (including Newsnight blog moderators) wary of voicing such criticism helps nobody, least of all Pakistan.

It's a very similar situation viz a viz Kenya. It doesn't really matter how one translates 'majimbo'. If the Kenyan political class pretends it's genuaiely capable of devolving power they're deluded and/or contemptibly corrupt.

Given the Kenyan demographics (and Pakistan is only about 10 points ahead in mean national IQ), if Kenya had to resort to the electorate choosing between a banana (yes) and an orange (no) symbol in the referendum over the adoption of a new constitution (which this current mess derives from) because of the low literacy level, one can be sure that most of Kenya's population doesn't have the cognitive ability to fully comprehend the basics (see link at end), never mind the finer legal points, of what Kenya's constitution (e.g. land reform, President/PM power sharing etc) really implies for them.

promoting multi-party 'democracy' under such conditions is just a cynical licence for some to exploit the majority, as the requisite conditions for a truly responsible, representative mandate from the electorate can't possibly exist.

This is why so many authoritarian countries are so wary of the West exporting democracy and 'human rights' via NGOs. They rightly see this as subversive, imperialistic and exploitative.

So, why was the Kenyan constitution ever put to the electorate and why do we expect multi-party democracy to fare much better in Pakistan? It demonstrably doesn't work. Like so many other developing world countries, their politicians prey on political correctness induced guilt, which makes the naive think there isn't genetic diversity in cognitive ability. There is in height and other biological characteristics, and there is within other species (such as dogs, cats and horses), so why isn't there genetic diversity in human cognitive ability? How could there not be given the physical gene barriers which have been operating for thousands of years?

Kenya had a one-party system for good reason. Its population isn't ready for multi-party democracy because of its mean IQ and distribution. Those who assert otherwise are, almost by definition, corrupt.

Mugabe has support throughout Africa because Africa essentially knows that it isn't ready for multi-party democracy.

Not long ago China told Nixon the same about China, so it's inevitable that Africa would look to China (or Islam) for support. China has made great progress because it hasa one-party system and this has control over its differntial birth rate.

Paxman was right to point out the feudal nature of the PPP leadership dynasty, but let's be frank, young Bhutto's responses weren't laudable, they were risible. Anyone with any sense (and he should have some if he's being Oxbridge educated), knows that if one's asked to do something patently stupid, one should decline the offer.

/blogs/newsnight/2008/01/monday_7_january_2008.html

Re: Post 17, R Brewing

"I found Jeremy Paxman's manner of questioning Bilawal Bhutto Zardari unfortunate, to put it mildly. Mr Paxman didn't sound anything like so smug last Friday while he was reading a 'news headline' about Britney Spears, an episode that led this Newsnight viewer to wonder whether our loyalty to Newsnight's 'values' isn't sometimes more principled than Newsnight's. If Mr Paxman were someone other than Mr Paxman he might consider taking himself to task on both counts."

'Smug'? I think not somehow. Fool-ish, maybe. Mr Paxman raised the bar high. Young Mr Bilawal Bhutto Zardari cleared it - with room to spare, I found. It was definitely surprising. I valued the revelation and felt fortunate to have witnessed it.

Perhaps take a fresh look at the whole Newsnight of Tuesday 8 January 2008 R Brewing, it's very interesting!

Thanks.

There seems to be a widespread feeling that because of historic factors beyond his control, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari deserves to be treated with disrespect; that's a very dangerous precedent. Whether that disrespect is prompted by a benevolent and contrary desire to see him perform well, or simply a galloping attack (admittedly perhaps only temporary) of Western superiority is immaterial.

I found it distasteful to see one man address another man in that way in front of the world's media; had their positions of power and influence been reversed I'd have felt the same. It may happen everywhere, every day, but I like to cherish the illusion that Newsnight is a bastion of civilisation, and that constructive discourse is its premise. In this, I may be as naive as anyone else with illusions, but I happen to think it's one worth defending.

P.S. This blog arrangement does not seem to be working very well.

ONE (OF MANY) IDIOCIES OF 'WIND' POWER.

I feel I should offer what little balance I can regarding the Jeremy Paxman-refereed 'debate' on nuclear power.

To counter the point of wind power being intermittent with the argument that the DEMAND is intermittent, is idiocy. As Humans, we don't, yet, possess the power to control the wind so cannot ensure a lack of wind and, hence, a lack of generated electricity, coincides with a reduction in demand. The wind can be absent for days or weeks - longer than the availability of any electricity generated by a "sister" hydro-electric plant. The reason, as any child-level of intelligence would tell you, we haven't, yet, had a shortage of supply is due to current fossil fuel-based electricity generation being able to provide electricity twenty-four hours a day. It is always available when you and I need it. Jeremy Paxman failed to make this point.

I don't know what is in the air that is breathed or the water that is drunk by those who speak obsessively about climate change, but talking about environmental issues, in general, seems to make normally intelligent people appear highly stupid: 'we must do this; we must do that'; knowing that, in the real world, 'this' or 'that' hasn't ever occurred before and so is highly unlikely to occur in the future, as the general population - the general mass of voters - aren't ever going to demand it. After fifteen years of relentless media brainwashing regarding 'climate change', have the British people risen up to demand something is done? One million may have marched against the invasion of Iraq, but one million aren't ever going to march in support of 'tackling climate change', the one fact the idiots in Government seem to acknowledge.

Most of the most stupid things I have ever heard emanate from the mouths of obviously-intelligent people relates to what must be done to solve a perceived environmental problem. It's baffling.

ONE (OF MANY) IDIOCIES OF 'WIND' POWER.

I feel I should offer what little balance I can regarding the Jeremy Paxman-refereed 'debate' on nuclear power.

To counter the point of wind power being intermittent with the argument that the DEMAND is intermittent, is idiocy. As Humans, we don't, yet, possess the power to control the wind so cannot ensure a lack of wind and, hence, a lack of generated electricity, coincides with a reduction in demand. The wind can be absent for days or weeks - longer than the availability of any electricity generated by a "sister" hydro-electric plant. The reason, as any child-level of intelligence would tell you, we haven't, yet, had a shortage of supply is due to current fossil fuel-based electricity generation being able to provide electricity twenty-four hours a day. It is always available when you and I need it. Jeremy Paxman failed to make this point.

I don't know what is in the air that is breathed or the water that is drunk by those who speak obsessively about climate change, but talking about environmental issues, in general, seems to make normally intelligent people appear highly stupid: 'we must do this; we must do that'; knowing that, in the real world, 'this' or 'that' hasn't ever occurred before and so is highly unlikely to occur in the future, as the general population - the general mass of voters - aren't ever going to demand it. After fifteen years of relentless media brainwashing regarding 'climate change', have the British people risen up to demand something is done? One million may have marched against the invasion of Iraq, but one million aren't ever going to march in support of 'tackling climate change', the one fact the idiots in Government seem to acknowledge.

Most of the most stupid things I have ever heard emanate from the mouths of obviously-intelligent people relate to what must be done to solve perceived environmental problems. It's baffling.