A week ago i posted a blog all about my quest for film footage of bands playing on Hastings Pier:
"HastingsPier & The BBC"
http://andymooseman.blogspot.com/2009/10/hastings-pier-bbc.html
Since then, i've contacted several people in my search for live footage. Including those people suggested to me, gig promoters & even somebody who is researching a book about the live music scene here in Hastings.
So far i've drawn a complete blank. I've even had no luck with photo's, or old gig posters. I'm still hopeful that some film etc will turn up & i still have a few "irons in the fire". So, here's hoping...
But, this got me thinking about whether we will ever have this kind of problem in the future? After all, these days everybody seems to have a digital camera, a video canera, or a mobile/cell phone capable of taking video, or at least photo's.
If you go to a gig these days it seems that everybody is taking photo's, or video of the event. I even did it myself when i went to see U2 at Wembley in August & i posted that footage & photo's on the Internet for all to see.
With the advent of MySpace & then YouTube, every band, whether they be an ambitious upcoming band, or whether they just want to post gig footage for their friends, are posting & sharing it on the Internet.
In years to come, you will be able to do a Google search, or the equivalent & find footage from even the most obscure bands & from every venue you care to search for.
I just wish this option was available for me now. To see footage of Jimi Hendrix & all those other great bands playing on Hastings Pier would bring a huge smile to my face.
Just think what a huge treasure trove of digital memories we are leaving for future generations.
Nothing is lost.
This, of course, opens up a whole different debate. But, that's a topic for another blog, or vlog.
Keep on filming guys & gals.
Search The Web

Custom Search
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Race For The Poppy.
It's that time of year again. Well, here in the UK anyway.
The annual race to be the first person to wear a poppy is now well underway.
Now, don't get me wrong, i always buy at least one poppy myself & fully support the cause.
The Royal British Legion do a wonderful job & those have that have given & are still giving their lives for this country need & fully deserve to be remembered.
But, what i do have a bit of a problem with though, is the apparent obligation to wear a poppy by all politicians, TV presenters & basically anyone in the public eye & the race to do so. I often wonder if there is some kind of instruction sent out to those i mentioned that they must wear a poppy.
Maybe i'm just a little cynical? But, this, apparent, annual race to wear a poppy before anyone else, or because they feel they have to, does a great disservice to the original reason for wearing one in the first place.
The slogan of the annual poppy appeal used to be "wear your poppy with pride". That's exactly how it should be. Wear your poppy with pride & because you want to, not because of obligation.
We will remember them.
The annual race to be the first person to wear a poppy is now well underway.
Now, don't get me wrong, i always buy at least one poppy myself & fully support the cause.
The Royal British Legion do a wonderful job & those have that have given & are still giving their lives for this country need & fully deserve to be remembered.
But, what i do have a bit of a problem with though, is the apparent obligation to wear a poppy by all politicians, TV presenters & basically anyone in the public eye & the race to do so. I often wonder if there is some kind of instruction sent out to those i mentioned that they must wear a poppy.
Maybe i'm just a little cynical? But, this, apparent, annual race to wear a poppy before anyone else, or because they feel they have to, does a great disservice to the original reason for wearing one in the first place.
The slogan of the annual poppy appeal used to be "wear your poppy with pride". That's exactly how it should be. Wear your poppy with pride & because you want to, not because of obligation.
We will remember them.
Labels:
andymooseman,
british,
legion,
obligation,
poppy,
pride,
royal
Friday, 23 October 2009
BBC & BNP, IMHO.
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise. We don’t believe in it at all”
Unless you’re not British, or have been living under a rock for the past few days, you can’t have escaped the impassioned debate that has been going on regarding the appearance of the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, on the BBC’s “Question Time” programme.
Just about anybody with an opinion on this has been wheeled out to express it.
So, why should i be any different?
As you can see by the quote that I opened this blog with, which is from Noam Chomsky by the way, i, somewhat reluctantly, believe that it was right for Nick Griffin to be asked to appear on the BBC's Question Time.
I’ll state straight away though, that I find the views of the BNP to be, at best, misinformed & misguided & at worst, to be basically Fascist in nature. I abhor their attempts to stir up ethnic tension & racial hatred in Britain. They certainly don’t do so in my name.
But, as the quote suggests, just because you don’t agree with the views of the BNP, or their methods, doesn’t mean that they should not be heard. After all, the reason that Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time in the first place, is because he is a democratically elected member of the European Parliament.
Therefore, he is entitled to air his views in public & who are the BBC, or anyone else for that matter, to deny him that right?
One of the great things about living in a democracy is the right to freedom of speech. If that is stopped, where does it end? You cannot pick & choose who has the right to freedom of speech, however unpalatable that may feel. Especially if they are an elected politician.
The people who should be blamed for this, are the people who voted for Nick Griffin & his BNP party in those elections. I suspect that many of those votes were cast as some kind of protest vote against all the other political parties.
I wonder what those people are thinking now & whether they will be voting BNP next time around?
Remember, be careful who you vote for, they might just get in.
I’ll admit that i didn’t watch Question Time myself. But, having heard the news & read the quotes, it appears that Mr Griffin didn’t exactly shine on the programme. Which, to me at least, is a big relief.
One of the good reasons for inviting him, or any other politician, onto a programme like Question Time, is to try & force them to say what they really think, to put them on the spot & to expose their shortcomings.
I’ll end this post by mentioning one of Nick Griffin’s quotes, which was about the “indigenous” people of Britain. Presumably Nick Griffin is one of those people who feel that only “true” British people should be allowed to live in the UK?
I find this very amusing, as it reminds me of my recent blog post “You’re not from around here are you?” which talked about exactly that point.
I wonder if Mr Griffin would subject himself to a DNA test? So that we can all see exactly where his ancestors come from.
Now, that would be worth televising.
Unless you’re not British, or have been living under a rock for the past few days, you can’t have escaped the impassioned debate that has been going on regarding the appearance of the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, on the BBC’s “Question Time” programme.
Just about anybody with an opinion on this has been wheeled out to express it.
So, why should i be any different?
As you can see by the quote that I opened this blog with, which is from Noam Chomsky by the way, i, somewhat reluctantly, believe that it was right for Nick Griffin to be asked to appear on the BBC's Question Time.
I’ll state straight away though, that I find the views of the BNP to be, at best, misinformed & misguided & at worst, to be basically Fascist in nature. I abhor their attempts to stir up ethnic tension & racial hatred in Britain. They certainly don’t do so in my name.
But, as the quote suggests, just because you don’t agree with the views of the BNP, or their methods, doesn’t mean that they should not be heard. After all, the reason that Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time in the first place, is because he is a democratically elected member of the European Parliament.
Therefore, he is entitled to air his views in public & who are the BBC, or anyone else for that matter, to deny him that right?
One of the great things about living in a democracy is the right to freedom of speech. If that is stopped, where does it end? You cannot pick & choose who has the right to freedom of speech, however unpalatable that may feel. Especially if they are an elected politician.
The people who should be blamed for this, are the people who voted for Nick Griffin & his BNP party in those elections. I suspect that many of those votes were cast as some kind of protest vote against all the other political parties.
I wonder what those people are thinking now & whether they will be voting BNP next time around?
Remember, be careful who you vote for, they might just get in.
I’ll admit that i didn’t watch Question Time myself. But, having heard the news & read the quotes, it appears that Mr Griffin didn’t exactly shine on the programme. Which, to me at least, is a big relief.
One of the good reasons for inviting him, or any other politician, onto a programme like Question Time, is to try & force them to say what they really think, to put them on the spot & to expose their shortcomings.
I’ll end this post by mentioning one of Nick Griffin’s quotes, which was about the “indigenous” people of Britain. Presumably Nick Griffin is one of those people who feel that only “true” British people should be allowed to live in the UK?
I find this very amusing, as it reminds me of my recent blog post “You’re not from around here are you?” which talked about exactly that point.
I wonder if Mr Griffin would subject himself to a DNA test? So that we can all see exactly where his ancestors come from.
Now, that would be worth televising.
Labels:
andymooseman,
BBC,
BNP,
british,
democracy,
fascist,
griffin,
national,
party,
question,
time
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Just Talking.
Recently, i've started listening to Podcasts. Either via my computer, or on my iPod, or iPhone. Why it's taken me so long to get to this point, i really have no idea.
But, anyway...
One of my favourite discoveries so far, is a podcast from a UK music magazine called "The Word". What this consists of is essentially three of the journalists sitting around a table & talking about music, or some other related topics. Now, to a lot of people this may seem like a recipe for disaster. But, i think it's absolutely brilliant & such a simple concept too.
I realise that the whole concept of the podcast is that it's audio only. Although i do understand you can get video podcasts as well. I've not tried them yet though & i'm not sure that i will either.
The audio podcast, although a product of the MP3 revolution, is in some ways a bit of a throwback to a bygone era. It harks back to the days when radio ruled the entertainment world. These days with TV, the Internet etc, so much of our entertainment is visual. This, naturally, changes the way that a program is delivered.
In days gone by, i can remember watching TV shows starring people like Peter Cook with Dudley Moore & Mel Smith with Griff Rhys Jones, who were basically just talking & often talking what appeared to be complete rubbish as well. I realise that both of these duo's were comedians & therefore a lot of what they were saying was scripted & acted out as well. Although you were never quite sure how much was ad-libbed & improvised.
The point being that this was very entertaining & for a great many people too. I'm not sure if anyone does anything like this anymore, on TV at least. These days we seem to need & expect as many bells & whistles as we can lay our hands on to make a much more visual experience. This, supposedly, is what the public demand.
But is it?
What i've found by listening to "The Word" podcast is that listening to people just talking, is really very enteratining. Especially when those people are knowledgeable & passionate about their chosen subject. There is no way that they can resort to visual stimuli to boost the entertainment quota. They have to rely on their voices, opinions, knowledge & the stories that they tell to do the entertaining.
What a novel idea eh?
It suddenly struck me earlier, whilst thinking about this topic. That maybe this is the reason that i like to watch & listen to vloggers on YouTube & elsewhere. As opposed to most of the other content on the site? It's just one person talking.
Maybe the audio podcast & the vlog are taking us back & reminding us all about the art of conversation, which so many people think is now a dead art form. It may be a one way conversation. But, the listener is quite probably participating in this "conversation" by laughing along, nodding their head. or talking back.
The art of conversation may well be very much alive & well. It's just found a new medium.
So, maybe going backwards is the new going forwards?
Just thinking.
But, anyway...
One of my favourite discoveries so far, is a podcast from a UK music magazine called "The Word". What this consists of is essentially three of the journalists sitting around a table & talking about music, or some other related topics. Now, to a lot of people this may seem like a recipe for disaster. But, i think it's absolutely brilliant & such a simple concept too.
I realise that the whole concept of the podcast is that it's audio only. Although i do understand you can get video podcasts as well. I've not tried them yet though & i'm not sure that i will either.
The audio podcast, although a product of the MP3 revolution, is in some ways a bit of a throwback to a bygone era. It harks back to the days when radio ruled the entertainment world. These days with TV, the Internet etc, so much of our entertainment is visual. This, naturally, changes the way that a program is delivered.
In days gone by, i can remember watching TV shows starring people like Peter Cook with Dudley Moore & Mel Smith with Griff Rhys Jones, who were basically just talking & often talking what appeared to be complete rubbish as well. I realise that both of these duo's were comedians & therefore a lot of what they were saying was scripted & acted out as well. Although you were never quite sure how much was ad-libbed & improvised.
The point being that this was very entertaining & for a great many people too. I'm not sure if anyone does anything like this anymore, on TV at least. These days we seem to need & expect as many bells & whistles as we can lay our hands on to make a much more visual experience. This, supposedly, is what the public demand.
But is it?
What i've found by listening to "The Word" podcast is that listening to people just talking, is really very enteratining. Especially when those people are knowledgeable & passionate about their chosen subject. There is no way that they can resort to visual stimuli to boost the entertainment quota. They have to rely on their voices, opinions, knowledge & the stories that they tell to do the entertaining.
What a novel idea eh?
It suddenly struck me earlier, whilst thinking about this topic. That maybe this is the reason that i like to watch & listen to vloggers on YouTube & elsewhere. As opposed to most of the other content on the site? It's just one person talking.
Maybe the audio podcast & the vlog are taking us back & reminding us all about the art of conversation, which so many people think is now a dead art form. It may be a one way conversation. But, the listener is quite probably participating in this "conversation" by laughing along, nodding their head. or talking back.
The art of conversation may well be very much alive & well. It's just found a new medium.
So, maybe going backwards is the new going forwards?
Just thinking.
Labels:
andymooseman,
audio,
conversation,
podcast,
talking,
thinking,
tv,
video,
wordmagazine,
youtube
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Hastings Pier & the BBC
Yesterday i attended a protest march to Save Hastings Pier.
The pier in Hastings has been in a state of neglect for a few years now. This is partly due to absentee owners. Because of this, approx 3 years ago the pier was closed, with immediate effect, due to its unstable state. It has been closed to vistors ever since.
It's in such a bad state of repair that there are notices posted advising people not to walk under it!
Hastings Pier was designed by Eugenius Birch. a famous Victorian pier builder & opened in 1872. He also designed the West Pier at Brighton, also in East Sussex. Ironically, the West Pier has also fallen into disrepair. It has since suffered a bad fire & is now in two parts & derelict.
Whilst at the protest march, i got talking to Natalie Graham a reporter for the BBC. You may have seen her on BBC South East Today. She was there to report on the march.
I asked her whether they were going to report anything about the musical history of Hastings Pier & all the great acts that have played there. Throughout the 1960's, '70's, 80's & even the 90's Hastings Pier played host to many great bands. These include Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd (with Syd Barrett), Genesis, Rolling Stones, The Who, Sex Pistols etc etc. You name a band, especially a British band & there's a pretty good chance that they played there.
I just happened to be wearing a t.shirt commemorating Jimi Hendrix's gig on the pier in October 1967 at the time.
She said that they didn't have time to put that side of the story into a brief news item. But, they would be very interested in doing a proper report on the pier's musical history. This need not be confined to just the rock music angle. But, also the raves that were held in the 80's & anything else musical for that matter.
Personally, i'd like any report to concentrate on the rock music angle. But, that is not set in stone.
So, this is where you come in.
I have done some research into the musical history of the pier in the past. But, as Natalie rightly pointed out. Just reeling off the names of the acts who have played there would not work very well on TV.
What we need is film footage, or photo's of bands/acts playing on Hastings Pier.
Do you have any? Or, do you know anyone who has?
If you do, please get in touch with me.
You can email me at andymoose44@hotmail.com
I'd love to get this story broadcast, as there is a very rich musical history to Hastings Pier & it would be great to see that recoginsed. It's all part of the heritage of Hastings Pier after all.
Whether the pier itself is saved & i hope it is. This is an aspect that should not be overlooked.
I hope you all agree.
So, please spread the word & let's see if we can get the rock n roll history of Hastings Pier onto the BBC. Thanks.
By the way. here's a link to a video i made for YouTube of the Save Hastings Pier protest march:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o465nmxWN9o
The pier in Hastings has been in a state of neglect for a few years now. This is partly due to absentee owners. Because of this, approx 3 years ago the pier was closed, with immediate effect, due to its unstable state. It has been closed to vistors ever since.
It's in such a bad state of repair that there are notices posted advising people not to walk under it!
Hastings Pier was designed by Eugenius Birch. a famous Victorian pier builder & opened in 1872. He also designed the West Pier at Brighton, also in East Sussex. Ironically, the West Pier has also fallen into disrepair. It has since suffered a bad fire & is now in two parts & derelict.
Whilst at the protest march, i got talking to Natalie Graham a reporter for the BBC. You may have seen her on BBC South East Today. She was there to report on the march.
I asked her whether they were going to report anything about the musical history of Hastings Pier & all the great acts that have played there. Throughout the 1960's, '70's, 80's & even the 90's Hastings Pier played host to many great bands. These include Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd (with Syd Barrett), Genesis, Rolling Stones, The Who, Sex Pistols etc etc. You name a band, especially a British band & there's a pretty good chance that they played there.
I just happened to be wearing a t.shirt commemorating Jimi Hendrix's gig on the pier in October 1967 at the time.
She said that they didn't have time to put that side of the story into a brief news item. But, they would be very interested in doing a proper report on the pier's musical history. This need not be confined to just the rock music angle. But, also the raves that were held in the 80's & anything else musical for that matter.
Personally, i'd like any report to concentrate on the rock music angle. But, that is not set in stone.
So, this is where you come in.
I have done some research into the musical history of the pier in the past. But, as Natalie rightly pointed out. Just reeling off the names of the acts who have played there would not work very well on TV.
What we need is film footage, or photo's of bands/acts playing on Hastings Pier.
Do you have any? Or, do you know anyone who has?
If you do, please get in touch with me.
You can email me at andymoose44@hotmail.com
I'd love to get this story broadcast, as there is a very rich musical history to Hastings Pier & it would be great to see that recoginsed. It's all part of the heritage of Hastings Pier after all.
Whether the pier itself is saved & i hope it is. This is an aspect that should not be overlooked.
I hope you all agree.
So, please spread the word & let's see if we can get the rock n roll history of Hastings Pier onto the BBC. Thanks.
By the way. here's a link to a video i made for YouTube of the Save Hastings Pier protest march:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o465nmxWN9o
Friday, 16 October 2009
This Blogging Lark
When i first started writing blogs back in May (?), i said then that i had no idea where this might lead & how often i might post.
Well, it has been a bit of a hit & miss affair. But, i'm now really starting to get into writing these blogs. I find that they compliment the videos i make at YouTube & give me yet another avenue for my thoughts. That was always the intention. But, as i said, you're never sure how these things will work out are you?
Recently, i've been posting one blog a day & it's becoming a bit of a habit.
If you've read any of the blog posts i've put up this week, you may have noticed that they are not exactly short! Now anyone who has seen my YouTube videos will know that i do have a bit of a reputation for making long videos & for talking at length. So, that will come as no surprise to them.
Also, the blogs i have posted recently could have been a lot longer & i've found myself having to edit myself, or stopping myself writing. I've also surprised myself with the amount that i've been able to write about these topics. A bit like my talking, when i start i find it hard to stop!
But, being new to this, i've been wondering what the "norm" is for the length of a blog post & whether that really matters? After all, this is supposed to be a personal way of expressing yourself. So, why should you have to edit yourself.
I'm sure that there is some kind of blogging etiquette that i'm not currently aware of. Maybe i should check? Not that i wish to be bound by what others tell me. Except for the rules of common decency, of course.
Another question is how often do people normally post? Is more than one post a day considered too much? And, once again, does it really matter?
So, do i let my thoughts & fingers run riot, or do i plan the blogs a little more & keep myself in check?
I guess that in the end i'll just treat every post as it comes & see where that takes me?
Well, it has been a bit of a hit & miss affair. But, i'm now really starting to get into writing these blogs. I find that they compliment the videos i make at YouTube & give me yet another avenue for my thoughts. That was always the intention. But, as i said, you're never sure how these things will work out are you?
Recently, i've been posting one blog a day & it's becoming a bit of a habit.
If you've read any of the blog posts i've put up this week, you may have noticed that they are not exactly short! Now anyone who has seen my YouTube videos will know that i do have a bit of a reputation for making long videos & for talking at length. So, that will come as no surprise to them.
Also, the blogs i have posted recently could have been a lot longer & i've found myself having to edit myself, or stopping myself writing. I've also surprised myself with the amount that i've been able to write about these topics. A bit like my talking, when i start i find it hard to stop!
But, being new to this, i've been wondering what the "norm" is for the length of a blog post & whether that really matters? After all, this is supposed to be a personal way of expressing yourself. So, why should you have to edit yourself.
I'm sure that there is some kind of blogging etiquette that i'm not currently aware of. Maybe i should check? Not that i wish to be bound by what others tell me. Except for the rules of common decency, of course.
Another question is how often do people normally post? Is more than one post a day considered too much? And, once again, does it really matter?
So, do i let my thoughts & fingers run riot, or do i plan the blogs a little more & keep myself in check?
I guess that in the end i'll just treat every post as it comes & see where that takes me?
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change
Written as part of the online blogging action day.
Visit www.blogactionday.org for more details.
One of the aspects of climate change that affects us all, even those who don't believe that climate change is real, is the issue of power & the future generating of power.
We all use power, in one form or another & we are using more all the time. Even though we are switching to low energy light bulbs, or turning down that heating thermostat a nottch, or two. The consumption of power, across the world, is growing. This situation will only get worse as the countries of the so called Third World become more prosperous. Just look at China, which is currently still opening a new coal fired power station every week!
Whilst this may make you feel that whatever we do in the West is futile, it isn't. If you make the effort to fit those low enerfy light bulbs, or turn down the heating, you will actually save yourself some money. What better incentive is there than that?
Having said that, we do need to find new ways of producing our power & for a number of reasons.
- Our commitments to reduce CO2 emmisions in future years.
- The fact that, for a lot of us, our reserves of oil & gas are running out.
- To prevent us being held to ransom by other countries, whose resources we want.
- Our current power stations are nearing the end of their natural lives.
And i'm sure you can think of your own.
So, where will all this power come from? There are obviously a number of options.
- We can expand & replace our nuclear power stations.
This, as we know, has never been a very popular way of generating power. I lived through both the Three Mile Island & Chernobyl incidents & was always very wary of nuclear power. Now, i'm not so sure. The technology has come a long way & those incidents might have actually done us some good & taught us some very valuable lessons.
Although i'm still a little sceptical, i'm coming round to the nuclear power option.
- We can build new coal burning power stations.
We keep being promised a new method of burning coal & one that is more environmentally friendly. I admit, i'm very sceptical about this option.
- Then there are the renewable energy sources. Which are surely the best way to go, if possible.
So far, in the UK at least, nearly all our resources for renewable energy have been poured into wind turbines. Whilst this is a good option, there are problems with wind power, in my opinion.
Although i like the look of the turbines, so many others find them unsightly. especially if they are living next to them? By their very nature they have to be built in prominent places, to catch the wind, which only increases this problem.
They also need the wind to blow...
Other renewable options are often talked about, like wave power etc. But, the one option which is so often overlooked is solar power. Why is this?
I am constantly amazed that solar power is hardly given the time of day when it comes to discussing our future options. Is their some kind of bias against it? And if so, why?
After all, unlike wind power, we don't need the sun to shine to generate power. Daylight will do.
I know that solar power is used more widely in other countries. but, even there, i don't think it's used as much as it could be. I'm happy to be corrected by the way.
What i'd like to see, as a start, is for the UK Government to ensure that all new houses are built with at least an element of solar power generation within them. This would drive down the cost of the technology & maybe even start up a thriving new business in the process & we could certainly do with that at the moment!
Then we can start on older properties. They could also give tax breaks to businesses to introduce solar power into their company buildings.
Yes, i know that some parts of the country/world have less daylight hours than others. But, here is where a mixture of technolgies can be used.
This is not a problem that is going to go away either. But, it is something that the UK Government has shied away from in recent years. Something needs to be done & it needs to be done now.
So, to paraphrase an old anti-nuclear slogan.
Solar power, yes please.
Visit www.blogactionday.org for more details.
One of the aspects of climate change that affects us all, even those who don't believe that climate change is real, is the issue of power & the future generating of power.
We all use power, in one form or another & we are using more all the time. Even though we are switching to low energy light bulbs, or turning down that heating thermostat a nottch, or two. The consumption of power, across the world, is growing. This situation will only get worse as the countries of the so called Third World become more prosperous. Just look at China, which is currently still opening a new coal fired power station every week!
Whilst this may make you feel that whatever we do in the West is futile, it isn't. If you make the effort to fit those low enerfy light bulbs, or turn down the heating, you will actually save yourself some money. What better incentive is there than that?
Having said that, we do need to find new ways of producing our power & for a number of reasons.
- Our commitments to reduce CO2 emmisions in future years.
- The fact that, for a lot of us, our reserves of oil & gas are running out.
- To prevent us being held to ransom by other countries, whose resources we want.
- Our current power stations are nearing the end of their natural lives.
And i'm sure you can think of your own.
So, where will all this power come from? There are obviously a number of options.
- We can expand & replace our nuclear power stations.
This, as we know, has never been a very popular way of generating power. I lived through both the Three Mile Island & Chernobyl incidents & was always very wary of nuclear power. Now, i'm not so sure. The technology has come a long way & those incidents might have actually done us some good & taught us some very valuable lessons.
Although i'm still a little sceptical, i'm coming round to the nuclear power option.
- We can build new coal burning power stations.
We keep being promised a new method of burning coal & one that is more environmentally friendly. I admit, i'm very sceptical about this option.
- Then there are the renewable energy sources. Which are surely the best way to go, if possible.
So far, in the UK at least, nearly all our resources for renewable energy have been poured into wind turbines. Whilst this is a good option, there are problems with wind power, in my opinion.
Although i like the look of the turbines, so many others find them unsightly. especially if they are living next to them? By their very nature they have to be built in prominent places, to catch the wind, which only increases this problem.
They also need the wind to blow...
Other renewable options are often talked about, like wave power etc. But, the one option which is so often overlooked is solar power. Why is this?
I am constantly amazed that solar power is hardly given the time of day when it comes to discussing our future options. Is their some kind of bias against it? And if so, why?
After all, unlike wind power, we don't need the sun to shine to generate power. Daylight will do.
I know that solar power is used more widely in other countries. but, even there, i don't think it's used as much as it could be. I'm happy to be corrected by the way.
What i'd like to see, as a start, is for the UK Government to ensure that all new houses are built with at least an element of solar power generation within them. This would drive down the cost of the technology & maybe even start up a thriving new business in the process & we could certainly do with that at the moment!
Then we can start on older properties. They could also give tax breaks to businesses to introduce solar power into their company buildings.
Yes, i know that some parts of the country/world have less daylight hours than others. But, here is where a mixture of technolgies can be used.
This is not a problem that is going to go away either. But, it is something that the UK Government has shied away from in recent years. Something needs to be done & it needs to be done now.
So, to paraphrase an old anti-nuclear slogan.
Solar power, yes please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)