Cliff Clavin Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 All these idiots calling for the end of Nuclear Power Stations is all fine and everything but I really hope they've thought it through. Will they be happy with sustained black out periods, schools closing on regular bases during winter times, high fatality rates in hospital, food shrortages, mass unemployment, a near or complete collapse of the economy? In reality we need more Nuclear Power Stations as it's the cheapest more efficient way of producing electricty and if the electric car is ever to take of in mass production it's the only way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 We're all going to become residents of Holland if we don't use nuclear power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 We're all going to become residents of Holland if we don't use nuclear power? Or even Denmark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Or even Denmark? DOH ! Geography fail ! I blame my tired brain, I've been staring at PHP all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R i chy Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Nuclear Power Stations ftw. Just build it in Rotherham so if there's a melt down the people mutated by radioactivity will blend in with the inbreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Or even Denmark? "Shrortages" definitely sounds Dutch to me, though his title suggests Denmark. Perhaps he's a polyglot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogey Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Alternatively we could spend the untold billions that new nuclear stations will cost on enough renewable sources to wipe out any energy crisis forever and ever and ever. Wind, hydro, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal. With a good spread of those and the development of hydrogen fuel cells were good to go. And before someone claims it will all be paid for privately, it wont it wont it wont because these things will be too important to fail when the private investors decide they arne't making enough money. So the public will have to pay for it one way or another. However badly damaged a windturbine is it won't render any part of the earth uninhabitable for a period of several hundred years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Alternatively we could spend the untold billions that new nuclear stations will cost on enough renewable sources to wipe out any energy crisis forever and ever and ever. Wind, hydro, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal. With a good spread of those and the development of hydrogen fuel cells were good to go. And before someone claims it will all be paid for privately, it wont it wont it wont because these things will be too important to fail when the private investors decide they arne't making enough money. So the public will have to pay for it one way or another. However badly damaged a windturbine is it won't render any part of the earth uninhabitable for a period of several hundred years. Absolutely - spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 However badly damaged a windturbine is it won't render any part of the earth uninhabitable for a period of several hundred years. And however undamaged it is, it won't produce even 1/1000 as much energy as a nuclear plant. You should at least try to compare like with like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 And however undamaged it is, it won't produce even 1/1000 as much energy as a nuclear plant. You should at least try to compare like with like. There isn't anything like a nuclear reactor - except another one. Fogey's point is an excellent one - if there was massive investment in all the sources he talks about we simply wouldn't need nuclear energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.