h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/12/climatechange.carbonemissions1

King is quite right on this point. As I've said many times beforehand, I'm an environmentalist but I'm no Green. The difference between the two is that the former recognises that there is a problem and is willing to explore all possible options to solve it, whereas the latter has already made their mind up about what kind of solution is appropriate, regardless of circumstance. They have their hammer, and everything looks like a nail.

What really irks me, though, is the fact that the debate is being conducted as if it were still the 1970s. Nuclear power has moved on a hell of a lot. Has anyone heard the phrase 'fast reactor' being uttered in recent memory? No? Well, fast reactors burn *everything* and produce small amounts of waste that have a half-life in decades. They also don't require fuel reprocessing (therefore no weapons grade material can be produced) *and* they actually *manufacture* fuel from unusable U238, leading to an almost limitless supply of nuclear fuel. I'm pretty certain that Greenpeace are now crossing their fingers and hoping that the Government has conveniently forgotten about this technology because if they haven't, and they propose using it, then any opposition will be exposed as Luddism, pure and simple.

Aviation is not unfairly scapegoated - 80% of air travel is for pleasure or for avoidable business purposes - it should be pilloried, we don't need more airports, and more half empty planes flying around our already over-crowded skies.

I see they're building more coal powered stations in Kent as well - an issue decided by the local council, somehow I suspect they may not have had extensive guidance, just pressure from the 'green' lobby.

I don't think that 'green' people would be pressurising anyone to build a coal-burning power station!

The choice was nuclear or coal - nuclear still get attached to Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island - new generation coal stations are sold as being clean.

However looking through some press cuttings I see you're right and environmentalists were against either solution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7169105.stm

No doubt as we speak they're all booting up their computers, emailing their friends, logging onto message boards to organise protest marches...don't tell me that all the power they use is generated by windmills and solar panels, please.

And Nick Cohen (not a man you want to get on the wrong side of) weighs in at the Observer, hardly a rightwing rag: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2240137,00.html

"Those suffering - and in some cases dying - this winter because they can't afford to heat their homes may not care about the technical arguments. They are more likely to see the green movement as their enemy if every time a new source of power is proposed an environmentalist pops up to explain why it can't be built."

Quite.

Well if it's energy used to heat homes then the suggestion I read in a piece in the Guardian taking about various green myths would be worth a try, stick a £20 note in with each pack of insulation sold. It's do far more than bunging up a new power plant or closing an old one to help cut the carbon emissions in the UK.
I know I'm one of the guilty ones who live in a home that is under insulated so I should get round to doing something about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/ethicalliving.carbonfootprints

Couldn't agree more. But this isn't happening. We ought to be moving over to a service-based untility industry, where you pay the compnay so much to heat your house and provide you with lighting, rather than it being in their interests to sell yopu as much energy as possible. That way, *they* would take every precaution to make sure that energy was not wasted.

At the moment, it's incumbent upon the homeowner.

My brother lives in a tower block, and heating is included in the rent. So he has it on to 't-shirt' weather all the time.

When I or my mother turn up there in our thermals we have to ask for it to be turned down!

So if people have enough energy to heat their homes without it costing more money, they'll use all the energy whether they need it or not. One of my neighbours live in exactly the same house I do - mid-terrace. But I bet her insulation is nowhere near as good as mine and she hasn't got double glazing or cavity wall insulation. So how would it be arranged? Even though I'm home all day and she worked midday mornings I bet my bill is cheaper than hers.

So how would you work out how much energy is needed for each house?

It's a good point. The sort of model I was envisaging was if, say, it was decided that a comfortable temperature for a house was 22 C, then the utility company would contract to maintain your house (and every other house it serviced) at that temperature. Then, it would be incumbent upon the company to insulate your home, fit an efficient boiler, make sure that radiators had preset thermostatic valves etc...

That way, instead of paying for energy, you pay for a benefit. As an example which works already, we all pay for street lighting though our council taxes. The council has to ensure that streets are safe, reliably and well lit, and the lights maintained properly. We shouldn't be bothered about whether they are fitted with low energy bulbs (which they invariably are), when they are turned on or off, or what the colour is. However, the council wants to minimise its energy and maintenance bills, and pays close attention to all of these.

You could extend this idea to lighting a home. Low energy or LED lamps, motion sensors, timer switches, all fitted by the energy company. You get charged for the service, they minimise the energy used and maximise their profits. Simple, eh?