.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Hoses of the Holy in the Parallel Universe

May 17, 2006

Nuclear Foolklear



Just before Dan Cruikshank on BBC 2 last night, there was (the final?) part of a series called It's Not Easy Being Green about a family who went Old Testament environmental, from the input to, er, output, as it were. I didn't see much of it, but what they were doing last night was installing a wind turbine in their (large) back garden. It was on the top of a tall frame rather than being affixed to their roof (which is what you have to do in an urban environment), but it really was quite straightforward.

In one of their sheds was a big green box containing - I assume - storage batteries and power transformer. This was connected to the turbine. And then from the green box - liderally! - a simple power cable and plug, which just went into the mains. It still gobs my smack, but it really did seem ridiculously easy.

So why aren't we all doing it? Why, instead, is the prime ministrone areseing on about what his posh friend George calls the nukular option?

As Tony Benn said, nuclear power is not clean, it's not cheap, and it's not safe. Doesn't matter if it runs for fucking fifty years without a mishap. Or sixty. Or a hundred. Eventually, Something Will Go Wrong. Leaks, explosions, negligence. And you always have the problem of the waste, which they want to bury in the ground. There's even talk of sending it to Australia (because it's so geologically stable) and burying it in the ground there. But first you have to get the waste to the place where you want to bury it, and for that you need transport. And containers. And you need to get it into the containers, reliably and safely, for year after year, and transport it, reliably and safely, year after year, to where it will be buried - and have to remain, reliably and safely, until the end of the time, or until Arsenal win the Champions League, whichever is sooner.

Now, have I missed something, or has someone invented a container that will never, ever, corrode or leak, for 50,000 years? Because, if they claim to have done, did they invent it 50,000 years ago and have been testing it ever since?

Transport to Australia? What in? An aeroplane that might crash? Or an "unsinkable" merchant ship manned by drunk Philippino or Russian sailors? A Royal Navy ship manned by drunk British sailors? What? Through the Suez Canal, yeah? Or round the Horn?

These issues don't matter to Mr Blair, because soon his mothership will return to Earth and take him back to his home planet.

===

In other news, has anyone seen How I Met Your Mother on BBC2 Sunday night (before Top Gear)? Quite nice, I think, and it's got that Alyson Hannigan in it.

7 Comments:

  • Well said. It's a disgrace, and I feel completely powerless to stop such a terrible mistake, and all in the guise of slowing down global warming - which may not have anything at all to do with our activity on the earth.

    It just seems to be the most convenient way for us to be able to carry on after fossil fuels have ran out. So rather than changing the way we use energy; Instead of making us more responsible and designing more low power technologies and investing in safer, greener energy, things that won't run out, like wind and waves (we live on a windy island for gods sake). We're going to take the easy way out. All this so we can carry on consuming in the most disgusting greedy ways in which we've become accustomed. It does really make me angry that this option is really being considered. Was Mr Blair on holiday on the 26th of April all those years ago? Has he not seen the great expanse of land that isn't fit for human inhabitation, and won't be for a good few thousand years? Not to mention the people it affected. How many of those would it take before we didn't have a safe place to tread on this little island/continent/planet?

    Vote Labour?

    By Blogger HolySwerve, at 7:45 am  

  • Sometimes I think that - in a parallel universe - Tony Blair makes his living pitching preposterous action adventure movie storylines to coked up Hollywood producers.

    There's a container ship. On the ocean. In a tropical storm. And it's attacked by pirates. And then terrorists. And in the containers - nuclear waste. And suddenly the pirates have to fight off the terrorists, because the crew all jumped overboard as the storm hit.

    Or this. There's an airport. It's busy. But there's a checkpoint. And everybody has to have their fingerprints scanned at the checkpoint. And there's only one member of staff on duty because it's lunchtime and they're all off at the pub on someone's leaving do. So there's one member of staff and a massive queue of people waiting to get scanned. And one of them is a suicide bomber. Standing next to a pirate... etc.

    By Blogger bot37363838, at 7:51 am  

  • But just think of the potential for litigation when someone else nicks all your wind by putting a big windmill up stream of you.

    The real answer is to get yourself a smallholding with a small private army and a stream running through, then get the television to fund it by making a series about you.

    Otherwise there's not enough land and resources to go around. Only the fast and violent will survive the collapse of the oil economy.

    By Blogger SimonHolyHoses, at 8:05 am  

  • it's all very well talking about windmills, but these things haven't been tested properly either. it's my worry that if we build too many windmills in britain then the whole country will take off in a big gust of wind and we'll all be transported into space.

    By Anonymous lwec, at 8:32 am  

  • oops. that was me. as if you didn't know.

    By Blogger dog, at 8:33 am  

  • Wind Turbines, not 'The Windmills' The wind turbines haven't been tested you mean? The Windwills have been tested and are safe for consumption

    …anyway

    By Blogger HolySwerve, at 10:07 am  

  • mo'75 to that!

    By Blogger dog, at 11:13 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home