Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Could this man's energy plans halt the meltdown?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 March 2008
By SAM PHIPPS
David King, the controversial former chief scientific adviser, is still making waves with his support for nuclear power as an answer to slowing climate change, writes SAM PHIPPS.
AFEW months ago Professor Sir David King landed in hot water – again. Asked by a woman at a lecture what she could do to help tackle climate change, he replied: "Stop admiring men who drive Ferraris."

Owners and dealers of the legendary Italian ma...



The full article contains 1112 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Kipling,

15/03/2008 03:24:19
Another Energy Saving Idea: empty your hot-water bottles into the toilet cistern & not down the plughole.
2

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 15/03/2008 06:50:48
Nuclear energy is not cost-effective.

If nuclear R&D had been redirected to, say, submarine turbine technology, ocean currents would be powering the planet by now. It's still not too late, and the turbines can be built in Scotland (from girders!)
3

donald,

glasgow 15/03/2008 07:46:13
How much energy did well paid nuclear flunkeys, such as Brian Wilson and Tony Benn (as Mon of Tech)get paid?
4

Unimpressed one,

15/03/2008 08:24:39
David King may be have been the government's former chief scientific advisor, but he was obviously pathetic at his job. He was largely responsible for the foot and mouth debacle which saw many herds of healthy animals put down on the basis of his love affair with computer modeling. As for his comments regarding AGW, if we wants to live in the Anarctic, let him put his money where his mouth is and let's see him set up home on the ice. The man's an arogant ar*se, scientist or not.
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 15/03/2008 08:25:00
Bring on the nukes and lets get back to the cheap electricity we had before wind turbines pushed up the cost.
6

Gothic Rose,

15/03/2008 09:16:31
Had a man asked the question,would he have replied"stop admiring women who drive Ferraris"?
7

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 15/03/2008 10:00:12
Does this scientist even read the Newspaper? Sellafields reproccessing efforts were a disaster. (Probably based on questionable technology he advocated) The cost of decommissiong 1 nuclear reactor is currently estimated at GBP 20 Billion pounds, and will take 20 years to complete. Given the UK history of Holyrood, Wembley and NumptyDome in London what do you guess the final price tag will be? 100 Billion? 200 Billion? More?

Nuclear, when the full costs including decommisioning are included, is not a cheap option. A much better option for Scotland is using renewable energy such as wind, wave, tidal and hydro sources along with clean coal technology using sequestration of the CO2 into the depleteing North Sea Fields to increase production.
8

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 15/03/2008 10:59:29
#8 How much do you think it will cost to remove the 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete that forms the foundation of every single wind turbine and also to remove the hundreds of miles of roads and reinstate the peat bogs.??
Or should the windies be allowed to sweep their dirt under the carpet??
9

Neil,

Glasgow 15/03/2008 11:46:00
If the government money "invested" in windmillery had been put into nuclear it would have ben quite unnecessary. Since nuclear doesn't need subsidy all that would have been required would have been for the lying eco-fascists to allow real investors to build nuclear reactors & we would have no risk of blackouts & electricity at half the current price.

There is not a single member of the "environmentalist" movement who is remotely honest who denies this - onthe other hand there is barelyb a single member of that genocidal movement who is in any way honest.
10

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 15/03/2008 15:38:57
Make the Internet illegal, it would save some electrickery and save us from reading this rubbish.

Must get a life!
11

Gordon48,

Uphall Station 15/03/2008 17:36:17
If we are serious about saving the world from overheating nuclear is one of best options. The only current alternative is to cover Scotland in wind farms. Its about time some of the polititians in Scotland started to stand up for folk who oppose Scotland becoming the 'best big wind farm in the world'
12

Neil,

Glasgow 16/03/2008 12:45:22
Even then wind, being intermittent, cannot provide power without back-up from CO2 producing power stations. I consider an Green's attitude to nuclear to be a touchstone as to whether they actually believe in the warming story & care about stopping pollution or are merely Luddites flying a false flag by how they react to nuclear. Anybody who genmuinely believes we face catastrophic CO2 caused warming must automatically be an enthusiastic supporter of the only practical other way of making power. The rest of them are lying.
13

truthsleuth,

16/03/2008 14:55:23
#6 Gothic Rose,
No
He would have answered the question in a sane and sensible manner as he always responds with answers appropriate to the intelligence and courtesy appropriate to the questioner and theier level of understanding.
And of course the man who asked the question would not be so sexuaist and silly as some 'females'.
14

truthsleuth,

16/03/2008 15:16:01
The answer to the Accelerated Climate Change problem is to
1. reduce use of cars lorries and aviation by maintaining the cost of oil based fuels at at least their current level plus inflation.

3. It may help to further increase landing charges for all short haul flights at all airports in the uk.

2. Use the revenue from this to directly invest in public transport, high speed rail and rail freight.

These are the most realisable means of reducing CO2 emmissions and maintaining something approaching current lifestyles and reducing pressures on food and fuel prices.


Bio fuels were a blind alley put about by the motor industry and frightened governments.

Widmills are double wasteful but could be locally beneficial when serving small communities requiring long didtance transmission cables.

Carbon sequestration though perhaps not the cleanest gives the best/safest hope.

Nuclear power should be kept as a emergency backstop at about its current level.

Last but not least efficiency in the home by sensible insulation and other efficiency measures. This backed up by a energy cost structure where costs are very low to meet the basic home energy needs and significant price rises foe energy consumption above this level.
15

Neil,

Glasgow 16/03/2008 16:30:21
You probve my point about false flags "truthsleuth".

You are opposed to more nuclear while clearly knowing perfectly well that everything you demand in the name of stopping CO2 will, while promoting Ludditism, have merely a token effect on CO2.

If you actually believed a word of the hysteria you want to spread you would want us to replace all our coal & oil fired generation with nuclear. That would have a serious efffect on CO2.
16

Danielrober2,

17/03/2008 18:34:55
Professor Sir David King, has a great title and he has a point of view. Not all of us involved with the UK renewable energy sector are represented by this guy. In fact he's never talked to my lot. So, so much for his contacts. Which is a shame.

Great title though Professor Sir, nice ;-)
17

truthsleuth,

22/03/2008 22:14:13
#16 Neil,
Read my lettrers and you will see I do NOT oippose Nuclear but support its use as a backstop
What is the point of nuclear proliferation to countries whose stability is more than suspect.
We would be jumping out of the petrol tank and into the nuclear inferno.
EWhen you can be sure of the safe and sensible use of nuclear power I will support it totally IT IS SIMPLY TO DEADLYIN THE WRONG HANDS.
18

truthsleuth,

22/03/2008 22:18:10
Read the text
Coal fired techno;ogy may not be as CO" free as Nuclear but it is free from misuse by idiots and proliferation by the prejudiced.
Coal sequestration supporting better burning techniques and the safety factor is a far better option.
19

Unimpressed one,

17/05/2008 09:54:24
A piece of shameless promotion of a book by an entirely discredited former scientific adviser. The man is clearly unhinged. He reckoned that Antarctica would be the only inhabitable continent by the end of this century. His advice to government over the foot and mouth debacle and his reliace on computer modeling to predict disease spread, resulted in a massive cost to UK taxpayers and abject misery for many farmers. A total bam who has been thankfully put out to grass where he can rant as much as he likes without costing us dear.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.