Swedes see sense and start on new Npower eelctricity

[Rob W 0]

Eventually reality bites and you have the choice between your principles and keeping the lights on

[Renton 17783]

Eventually reality bites and you have the choice between your principles and keeping the lights on

 

Any link Rob?

 

Anybody who is against nuclear power on principle is an idiot imo, one reason why I will never accept the dogma of the Greens.

[Rob W 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...referendum.html

 

I read it on the Beeb last week

[Guest alex]

Just how many electric eels do you need to run a power station?

[Rob W 0]

tell me........

[ChezGiven 0]

Swedes are mental

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/201...nts-baby-gender

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

Eventually reality bites and you have the choice between your principles and keeping the lights on

 

Any link Rob?

 

Anybody who is against nuclear power on principle is an idiot imo, one reason why I will never accept the dogma of the Greens.

 

Nuclear power is crazy - its just kicking the can down the road. If theres one industry thats guaranteed to need massive bailouts in the future its nuclear. Thats when the eggheads that want build more will suddenly start emigrating - I guarantee you now that will happen.

[Renton 17783]

Eventually reality bites and you have the choice between your principles and keeping the lights on

 

Any link Rob?

 

Anybody who is against nuclear power on principle is an idiot imo, one reason why I will never accept the dogma of the Greens.

 

Nuclear power is crazy - its just kicking the can down the road. If theres one industry thats guaranteed to need massive bailouts in the future its nuclear. Thats when the eggheads that want build more will suddenly start emigrating - I guarantee you now that will happen.

 

Well what are the alternatives then? Renewables can only provide so much (and not much). Gas won't last forever and makes us dependent on other countries. Is it still acceptable to use coal?

 

The French have successfully used Nuclear for nearly all their energy needs for decades, and import electricity to us - at considerable profit no doubt. Like I said it should be open for debate and not dismissed out of hand based on irrational fears and prejudices.

[Rob W 0]

there are no easy answers on the energy front - renewables are expensive and often not totally reliable, nuclear is dependeable but expensive and has some serious dangers, gas will have to be imported , oil we all know about........................

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

there are no easy answers on the energy front - renewables are expensive and often not totally reliable, nuclear is dependeable but expensive and has some serious dangers, gas will have to be imported , oil we all know about........................

 

I'm all for high tech solutions, but thats just it with nuclear - only half of it is high tech, the other half distinctly low tech - bury the waste ....with a half life of 40,000 years.... NIMBY please (but have a guess which part of the country has lots of secluded spots where nobody goes).

 

 

Sure there are some nasty years ahead but a least with oil you only pay once, no matter how much it costs. With nuclear you pay again and again with little or zero margin for error.

[Renton 17783]

there are no easy answers on the energy front - renewables are expensive and often not totally reliable, nuclear is dependeable but expensive and has some serious dangers, gas will have to be imported , oil we all know about........................

 

I'm all for high tech solutions, but thats just it with nuclear - only half of it is high tech, the other half distinctly low tech - bury the waste ....with a half life of 40,000 years.... NIMBY please (but have a guess which part of the country has lots of secluded spots where nobody goes).

 

 

Sure there are some nasty years ahead but a least with oil you only pay once, no matter how much it costs. With nuclear you pay again and again with little or zero margin for error.

 

You haven't given any alternatives though.

 

Modern nuclear stations are pretty failsafe, more people have been killed in conventional power stations in fact. Chernobyl was nowhere near as bad as was anticipated. It could have been a lot worse like but it would be unfair to compare that decrepit piece of Soviet junk with a modern plant.

 

As for waste, seriously, who gives a shit? Just bury it securely 2 miles underground and forget about it. Apart from the expense I've never understood why it's an issue. Compared to the pollution caused by fossil fuels it's nothing to worry about imo. Until we get fusion we're stuck with fission as part of the solution I'm afraid.

[Rob W 0]

burying it under ground is ....... difficult - they spent millions looking at doing it at Sellafield butthere are seriosu issues withe the geology

 

One way would be to drill a large diameter oil type well in the S N Sea through the salt and then put the really hi-grade stuff in it - then concrete the well in

 

Under a couple of miles of rock and salt it would be pretty safe - until someone else drilled into it in say 20,000 years........................

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

there are no easy answers on the energy front - renewables are expensive and often not totally reliable, nuclear is dependeable but expensive and has some serious dangers, gas will have to be imported , oil we all know about........................

 

I'm all for high tech solutions, but thats just it with nuclear - only half of it is high tech, the other half distinctly low tech - bury the waste ....with a half life of 40,000 years.... NIMBY please (but have a guess which part of the country has lots of secluded spots where nobody goes).

 

 

Sure there are some nasty years ahead but a least with oil you only pay once, no matter how much it costs. With nuclear you pay again and again with little or zero margin for error.

 

You haven't given any alternatives though.

 

Modern nuclear stations are pretty failsafe, more people have been killed in conventional power stations in fact. Chernobyl was nowhere near as bad as was anticipated. It could have been a lot worse like but it would be unfair to compare that decrepit piece of Soviet junk with a modern plant.

 

As for waste, seriously, who gives a shit? Just bury it securely 2 miles underground and forget about it. Apart from the expense I've never understood why it's an issue. Compared to the pollution caused by fossil fuels it's nothing to worry about imo. Until we get fusion we're stuck with fission as part of the solution I'm afraid.

 

 

There is no choice but to use less energy and a managed contraction.

 

Uranium is also a non renewable resource - its price will go up too. Get ready for Peak Uranium.

 

Even if it was unlimited, the maintenance will cost trillions in a best case scenario. What about failed states across Europe .. that could happen.

 

I don't think you can gloss over the disposal problem.

 

Do you trust the good folks in the industry or the government to bury the waste properly? The whole business will always be shrouded in secrecy and lies. Then look what happened off Sicily - the mafia dumped it in the sea. Others have dumped it off Somalia.

 

People will always have their hand out and look the other way.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Just make sure Stephen Hawking tells us how to get fusion working before he dies. Problem solved.

[Rob W 0]

"There is no choice but to use less energy and a managed contraction."

 

try selling that to the voters.......................