What the privatesens is Caramac 788

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:31:26 +0200, Stephen M Baines

The referendum was years ago. (Of course it was supported by Denmark which has huge vested interests. "Renewables" are one of their biggest exports.). But the nuclear power is still there. For a dose of reality see (e.g.)

feared that Sweden will lose its international compebreastitiveness. The energy production of the remaining nuclear power plants has been considerably increased in recent years to compensate for the turn off of BarsebŠck. In 1998, the government decided to build no further hydropower plants in order to protect national water resources. In spite of extensive efforts to create alternatives to nuclear power, such as fossil fuels, it is not likely that Sweden can complete the nuclear power phase-out by 2010. It has been estimated that nuclear power plants in operation will stay in operation until 2050.

In March 2005, an opinion poll with 1027 persons asked, showed 83% support for maintaining or increasing nuclear power.1 Another poll in May that polled residents that lived around BarsebŠck found that 94% wanted it to stay. In June, 2005, radioactive water was leaking from the nuclear waste store in Forsmark, Sweden. The content of radioactive caesium in sampled water was ten times the normal value.

You may not even have to wait far beyond the next election.

Do you know where Sweden gets its ethanol from? Some comes from the European wine lake. That certainly has a large negative energy balance i.e it takes more energy to make it than it produces. Well done EU. But most comes from Brazilian sugar cane. The debate has raged for years about the energy balance - with claims varying from highly positive to highly negative. It's hard to judge but if it's really highly positive the debate should easily have been settled years ago. It's a large commercial interest. That and ideological wishful-thinking make it easy to come up with "suitable" results.

The reality for sugar cane is probably a small positive balance. Is it worth the destruction of the rainforests, environmental degradadation, river pollution and slave-labour practices that accompany it? I leave readers to judge.

"Environmentalists" rail against the destruction of rainforest to grow soya beans but proudly buy "green" bio-diesel. Which is made from those soya beans. Ho hum.

other points. -- Phil C.