Why is it that all you people want to deny the flora of the world enough CO2 to live a healthy life.

We all need flora to exist, & you are denying it the CO2 locked up over the ages, when we can finally put some back where it came from, & improve our lives doing so.

If you have ant PROOF that CO2 causes any harm, spit it out, or stop the bill dust.

Foxy,

Your comment "I guess we shall have to wait and see what choices
are on offer." is more than a little naive. I remember going to a renewable energy presentation at a University roughly 40 years ago when virtually all of the technologies that available today were being developed including wind, solar, geothermal, wave, biomass, battery storage etc.

4 decades later the technologies are far advanced and mature, and while further advances can be expected, there is no magic bullet over the horizon, and the choices we have today are unlikely to differ much the choices we will have in 2050.

The single biggest problem that we face in reducing fossil fuel use is scalable emissions free base load. The only technology that fits this bill is nuclear, and the choice will need to be made at some point between fossil fuels or nuclear, and the scaremongering will have to stop.

Shadow Minister,

I'm sure that as we figure out the safety issues
the scare-mongering will cease.

That's all I meant by my "wait and see" remark.
Confidence grows as things are resolved.

Hi Foxy,

Someone, I forget who, was on TV a few weeks ago saying that they had a pacemaker, powered by plutonium, a tiny amount of course. Nuclear power, in other words, which can regulate heart rate.

And of course, nuclear-powered submarines. And probably all manner of hospital equipment too.

Yes, nobody should build a nuclear-power station 100 metres from the beach, in a tsunami-prone area, and with earthquakes every few months.

Nobody should build another nuclear power station using seventy-year-old technology, like at Chernobyl. Or try to shut down a nuclear power station without all of the sensible safeguards, not like at Chernobyl, 34 years ago.

Human error with any technology is difficult to control completely. But given that France and Finland seem to have few problems with the actual operations of their nuclear plants, and provided that older stations are replaced in good time, then maybe there are no more problems with nuclear power stations than with wind towers or solar panel.

After all, has anybody thought what might happen if a wind tower toppled over onto some endangered wildlife, such as the burrow of a rare purple-arsed wombat ? Or if a solar array collapsed onto a sheltering cross-eyed pigmy wallaby ? Nobody gives them much thought.

Joe

Foxy,

The safety issues were solved long ago. The anti nuke activists are railing against issues from the 60s and 70s. They need to get a bit more up to date.

Nuclear power is twice as safe as renewable power.

I'll wait and see when all the evidence is in.