April 22nd TV Debate

[squirrel42]

I'm going along to be in the audience this Thursday for the Sky News TV Debate - it's being filmed in the South West, although it seems we're not supposed to say exactly where for security reasons.

Would people like an official MN behind-the-scenes report afterwards?

Should I break the rules and heckle/cheer loudly at a strategic moment, and if so then when?

If I'm allowed to ask a question should I go "off-script" and ask about biscuits?

Is there anything else I should think about?

strix shame on you for not reading the link properly (did you see the QUOTE from the yougov spokesperson) and not pointing out WHY craig murray was sacked (and why the govt gave him a 6 year salary settlement???)

he is a womanising drunkard maybe, but politically he has been extremely brave in pointing out the gross human rights violations he was party to. we were dealing with a govt that boiled people alive (@!!!!!) without batting an eyelid because the US told us to and for oil expediency.

he blew the whistle.

shame shame shame on you.

"because the US told us to and for oil expediency"

Could you substantiate this clain please. I don't understand it because the vast majority of Uzbekistan's leases are awarded to Russia and China. So what exatly is your Us/oil connection? Not EVERYTHING wrong with this planet can be attributed to the US and to Oil.

I'm just pointing out that Murray has an axe to grind and is not an unbiased credible news source.

But, as I said earlier, anyone who is opposed to nuclear power is therefore choosing to maintain (or even increase) our dependancy on oil.

Strix, are you suggesting it's one or the other with regards to oil and NP?

I didn't get the sense that NC was opposed to NP, rather I understood that he wanted to unpack the assumptions behind the conflicting statements regarding alternative power sources, and make the best decision. I'm assuming they've done some unpacking already, and he was pretty clear about his objections to the Labour position that NP is our primary solution to energy issues.

Brockg - Thank you I agree with him!

Anyone who hasn't seen it watch it here

Interesting what he says about being bombarded with posters...

No single country in this world is perfect, but we have it a lot better than others in this country. We have a lot of great things going for us, and I think people forget how far things have changed over the past 10 years.

People share their bad stories about the NHS, schools, etc because people are more likely to complain than talk about things they're content with, and for every bad story there are 100s of good ones.

It's easy for DC to target people that in his eyes don't do the right thing, but I think the answer is trying to understand why these people don't conform to what the rest of us think is th right way. Same as the prisons - the answer isn't to build bigger prisons, it's to try to stop crime happening in the first place and to tackle the root causes of crime.

zazizoma, yes, at present the choices are fossil fuels or nuclear. "AT PRESENT" is a very important part of the last sentence. Clegg mention some alternative means of generating energy (forgotten exactly what they were now) but they are not proven to market technologies. So they are not CURRENTLY feasible options.

I am all for research into energy sources which reduce our dependancy on oil. I believe this has more to do with national security and conservation than it is does with global warming, incidentally. But, whetever your reasons, I think everyone agrees that we need to seek alternatives means to provide energy.

HOWEVER... until such technologies exist, I believe it is essential we proceed with nuclear. It is not perfect, but neither is oil/gas/coal. And those are the coices TODAY.

Also, I believe there is not one best source of energy that all the world should turn to. We should all be looking to build an energy portfolio which spreads our risks.

Russia is very scary indeed. Not only because they own much of the resources but they have a virtual monopoly on the pipelines to Western Europe. And that is absolutely a threat to our national security.

Now, I hate Gordon Brown. But, on this subject, he is right. (and Obama is a fool for trusting Russia)

I can see Strix that you hold a very strong opinion on this. I'm sorry but I don't share your certainty, and I find that the whole nuclear power narrative doesn't quite hold together.

For example, if indeed, as GB says, "You can't have a balanced energy policy in the modern world, as almost every country is now finding in the advanced world, without using nuclear power," what are we actually saying to Iran, a country whose area and population are both greater than ours, when we demand they cease efforts to develop nuclear capability? Are we dooming them to a somewhat lesser existence?

And I'm very aware that NP was initially developed as the means to maintain production capability for nuclear weaponry in a useful manner. This is our issue with Iran. Nuclear power=nuclear weaponry.

And finally, any money you spend on NP is money NOT being spent on R&D for alternatives.

I'm not saying don't use it, but I'd like to see an overall energy strategy that doesn't hold any one source sacrosanct because of motives that are not clearly understood or admitted.

The way to get energy security is to bring liquified natural gas (LNG) into the UK by ship from a wide range of locations. Build the necessary facilities to turn the LNG back into natural gas and feed it straight into the national gas pipeline grid.

We do not need renewables or nuclear or dependency on Russian gas if we do that. We can burn natural gas in hghly efficient combined cylce gas turine power stations or use it to heat homes/offices or use in industrial processes. It really is the fuel of the future - both plentiful and cheap.

Many many countries could potentially supply us and gas will never run out because it is literally everywhere on the planet.

zazizoma - iran have nuclear power, not weapons - so they're not 'doomed to a somewhat lesser existence'. You're right that nuclear power was linked to weapons initially, but the two don't necessarily go together; the technology required is very different and a country can very much have a sccessful nuclear power programme without the ability to produce weapons. (I trained in nuclear industry btw). I don't quite understand the argument that 'any money you spend on np is money not being spent on r&d' np is profitable, esp in a world where coal/oil/gas are increasing in price

Natural gas prices have collapsed in the last 3 months and it is now by far the cheapest energy source on the planet.

Emits far less CO2 than coal when burned in a CCGT power plant.

Does anyone know how much energy can be generated by solar panels on buildings?

I hate the idea of more nuclear power stations but can see options are becoming limited with fossil fuels running out.

Turningblue, thank you for the clarification. I believe the contentious issue is enriched uranium, which you need for both power and weapons, though you do indeed more of it for weaponry and of a better grade. (But I think it's basically the same equipment & method.) The demand is for Iran to stop its enrichment programme in its entirety, both industrial and weapons grade, and instead buy its enriched uranium from Russia (I think) to run in its plants.

If you don't have an independent enrichment programme, you don't have an independent nuclear power programme. I wonder if NP for the UK would be as profitable if we had to purchase our enriched uranium from another country.

But my real point was not about Iran, but about how much of the UK's rationale for continuing with NP to the degree proposed is actually about maintaining the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. It's a question I have, and until I see an overall policy with numbers that different groups will agree to, I won't see an answer, especially give GB's stated preference for a strong nuclear arsenal.

I'm also assuming there is a finite amount of money to spend on alternative energy, so if you spend it on NP you won't have it to spend on R&D for other sources.

have you read up anything about craig murray strix? the way that he was treated was absolutely diabolical: clearly it is not an ambassador's job to make his country aware that they are using intelligence extracted by torture.

the charges against him were trumped up (no one actually gave a damn that he was a womanizer until he started shedding light on the atrocities being commited by the regime in tashkent) and clearly the FO needed to clean up the mess as they offered him 6 years salary and allowed him to resign.

for all his faults, he is a brave man, willing to put his livelihood on the line for what he saw as morally right.

am i to gather that you don't think the use of torture in intelligence gathering is wrong? (tbh, it's thick as how can intelligence gained through these means can ever be reliable?)

and lest we forget, the US regime at the time were advocating waterboarding at the very highest levels.

ahhh, zazizoma - now i see your point

snowlady - photovoltaic solar cells that generate electricity have extremely high capital costs and require a lot of maintaining. In low solar regions they really are a waste of time.

The type of solar panel that just heats water are worth having. Lower tech, low maintenence and pretty good even in the UK on a south facing roof.

We could not run an economy on solar in the UK but solar hot water panels might have their place in large ofice buildings for example and make a contribution. The newer type of flexible solar voltaic panels may have a place if they get cheaper but only in very sunny regions.

Thank you for the info Beenbeta. We keep getting leaflets through the door about solar panels. I am not averse to buying a solar panel but as we may move house in the next couple of years am thinking we will have to wait till the next move and buy one then.

Iran is not at risk of being without means to generate power. They have LOTS of oil. And this fact of course begs the question of why exactly do they need nuclear power. Is is really just for power... A claim which is doubted by many.

Strix - you make a very good point. They have lots and lots of gas too (as does the whole world, as it turns out). But you point up the whole international hypocrisy surrounding the nexus of Nuke Power and nuke weapons ... and the villains of the piece are the French (et, même, je suis moitié française!) who have unilaterally established this Nuke Power bridgehead - and are using the EU and deregulation of markets to propagate it abroad 'cos they can't support a 35 hour week on their arms trade and increasingly mediocre wine ...

Zazizoma, BeenBeta, TurningBlue, Strix, je fais dodo, je reviens demain matin ...

Bonne nuit, mesdames, les filles ...

I missed this v interesting debate about energy - never mind. For the record I am with Strix. IMO we need some non fossil fuel security of supply plus there is obviously the need to very quickly reduce carbon emissions - in this scenario some new nuclear power stations are the (very) temporary, least worst option whilst we get on with working out how to reliably generate from renewables on a very large scale. Like everyone else I hate/am frightened by the idea of nuclear waste and nuclear accidents - so we also have to make sure we are very very careful how we do it.

mrsbaldwin, I think we're all in agreement with Strix regarding the urgent need for non-oil based energy sources. I haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.

But what is the best short-term strategy within a long term plan? Labour contends that we have to build new NP plants now. Lib Dems counter that these NP plants do not meet the immediate energy needs because they won't be up and running for years, and the cost is higher than Labour claims. I think the Lib Dems are suggesting that if we put that same alternative energy money into 1) conservation and 2) R&D of other energy sources that we could meet the UK's energy needs on a shorter time-line.

I don't know who is right. I find the Labour claim suspect for the reasons given in last night's posts, and I like the 'conservation efforts meet production efforts' in the Lib Dem plan. So NP? Maybe, but I need to be convinced by something other than GB telling me so.

Zazizoma, you speak wisely, imho.

I found this little nuclear nugget this morning - tangential, but very revealing:

(my added emphasis on the pay off line, and the translation is by someone called Christopher le Coq, apparently)

Jacques Foos is the chair holder of isotope radiation and the president of the ?environmental center? of CNAM. He is the vice president of the commission of the surveillance factory of the Hague (CSPI). The government named him an expert in the field of ionizing rayons for the creation of a national plan ?health-environment". This is what he has to say:

"... Of course France, due to pressure from the anti-nuclear crowd, could stop nuclear energy; it?s a small country that would find itself at 300th in the world... Better to stay on this path and help other countries benefit from our pioneer experience in this field ? it can only be extremely profitable for our country ."

er, France , that is ...

I found this little nuclear nugget this morning - tangential, but very revealing:

(my added emphasis on the pay off line, and the translation is by someone called Christopher le Coq, apparently)

Jacques Foos is the chair holder of isotope radiation and the president of the ?environmental center? of CNAM. He is the vice president of the commission of the surveillance factory of the Hague (CSPI). The government named him an expert in the field of ionizing rayons for the creation of a national plan ?health-environment". This is what he has to say:

"... Of course France, due to pressure from the anti-nuclear crowd, could stop nuclear energy; it?s a small country that would find itself at 300th in the world... Better to stay on this path and help other countries benefit from our pioneer experience in this field ? it can only be extremely profitable for our country.

er, France , that is ...