Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Think tank says nuclear is not viable option

There are many of us who have always assumed that the nuclear power generation option was the reliable, if not necessarily the most pleasant or desirable, backstop; perhaps giving mankind a few more decades leeway in order to develop more efficient and cost effective renewable energy power generation options.

It looks as if we will have to think again. This report via Reuters suggests that the planet cannot afford it, in terms of cost, logistics, or of security.

" ... if it [nuclear] was to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075. That .... meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years."

One of the report's conclusions is:- "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix"

Back to the "Arks 'R Us" drawing board then .......

Silence is Golden

There are awards in the enviro sector, too (actually, I am pretty sure there are awards for everything, including Funeral Direction), with equally scammy entries, and so I feel justified in sharing: What is your stand on "scams"?

Half a day gone almost, and still no reply. Hmnn.

Maybe it's creative use of white space, with minimal, but eloquent, copy (or, in fact, none).

I know, let's submit it! Does this Forum count as a legit medium? Now, which category....

Oh, rats, I've spoiled it now. Sorry.

Floods of neglect?

I'm not even going to comment on this other than to recommend reading the article, and perhaps the first 12 or 15 response comments. Talk about lighting the blue touchpaper!

Taken from The Guardian CIF, this just shows how far apart peoples' views can get when stirred up just a tad.

There's a slightly more measured article on the Channel 4 website that's also worth a viewing.

I'll just wade back across to the office now .................

MyFace and SpaceBook. And YouBo. And BeTube. And...

I'm over 40. So I can't network socially (apparently) online simply by an inability to work these new-fangled computer thingies.

Nor, some yoof commentators would have us believe, should I try.

Well, sadly for them, and for the sake of Junkk.com, I have, and am. Trying, that is.

I have to admit some work for me. Some don't. I see the value of all, to varying degrees, and need to 'work' them to help our message. I don't see me being the best to do this, so am hoping that some of the chats I'm having with educational institutions about work placements here for students will bring a golden opportunity or few. I'm still not clear how one breaks through, as a vast marketplace, even online, still requires something to make your shingle stand out. Either a growing friends list, I guess, or the quick hit of a popular viral.

So I was simply interested, with little to add as the debate seems to have been well covered already, in this: Do Facebook and MySpace suffer from a class divide in the UK?

Then again, for profile maybe I should.... Dudes....er, Word up!

"Any colour, so long as it's green"?

This certainly twitched my eyebrows somewhat. From The Times.

BMW "makes cars that are much more fuel-efficient than the likes of the hybrids built by Japanese manufacturers"

Well, that statement made my eyebrows reach the top of my forehead! If that's true, why the German consumer rush for the Pious et al?

They reckon that its down to a "colossal failure of marketing by the German auto industry".

The consumer survey final point is a real WOW:-
Within ten years ...."more than a quarter of people say that they will not have a car at all and 50 per cent say that they will have some kind of environmentally friendly vehicle: a hybrid, an electric car, a hydrogen-fuelled car or an LPG-powered car."

So its all about consumer perception then. The big question is just how much that perception is driven by marketing? Or, perhaps, how much is marketing driven by consumer perception?

Who's greenwashing who? If the Advert says it's green, then is it always so? EnviROI answers on a postcard please.

Addendum:
And on the same day that this story appears, BMW announce plans to radically reduce the CO2 emissions across their vehicle range. Details on Motoring Reuters. And other additional gizmos to reduce fuel consumption - details at What Car.

Maybe the first salvos in a new marketing effort to overcome their previous 'colossal failure'?