Cyclone Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Have you not seen the damage done in America due to fracking ? It's abhorrent, and the only ones to benefit will be already wealthy share holders. For example? ---------- Post added 24-07-2013 at 22:24 ---------- Nuclear gets billions in subsidy, plus an unlimited taxpayer backstop for clean-up costs basically for thousands of years, activities that will be going on long after the plants stop generating power. Green energy is renewable, clean and has minimal clean-up costs. Once the transmission infrastructure (the really expensive bit) is in place windmills, solar panels etc... Can be renewed as needed and scaled up. Notice the difference? I certainly notice a difference in how you talk about them... But was that the difference that you wanted me to notice. You appear to view nuclear power through some sort of distorting dark lens and 'green' power through rose tinted glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Have you not seen the damage done in America due to fracking ? It's abhorrent, and the only ones to benefit will be already wealthy share holders. Ive seen the fact that the US is no longer dependent on importing fuel. Wait till the electric cars get going, Saudi Arabians will be back on their camels by 2030. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Shoes Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Ive seen the fact that the US is no longer dependent on importing fuel. Wait till the electric cars get going, Saudi Arabians will be back on their camels by 2030. Still gotta generate the electric for those cars somehow. I bet alot of those who were opposed to nuclear power in the 80's & 90's feel a bit stupid now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 For example? ---------- Post added 24-07-2013 at 22:24 ---------- I certainly notice a difference in how you talk about them... But was that the difference that you wanted me to notice. You appear to view nuclear power through some sort of distorting dark lens and 'green' power through rose tinted glasses. Shall we keep it simple. One may cost more now but causes no waste management issues, can be brought on line fairly quickly and can scale up. The other has a 10-20 year lead time for new generating capacity, has potential operators pulling out left right and centre, has one potential operator demanding a 40 year public subsidy and produces waste that we still have no national strategy for dealing with long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 You missed the point that one is utterly unreliable and cannot generate enough power for our needs. The other one has run for decades in France and is capable of generating massive amounts of power, even if we all switched to electric cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 You missed the point that one is utterly unreliable and cannot generate enough power for our needs. The other one has run for decades in France and is capable of generating massive amounts of power, even if we all switched to electric cars. Are you suggesting we go 100% nuclear? Best tell Osborne to call a hold on the gas subsidies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Are you suggesting we go 100% nuclear? Best tell Osborne to call a hold on the gas subsidies. Please show me where I suggested that? You can't. But that's typical of your "debating" style - when you cannot find something to criticise let's make up something and then attack that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I would go for 100% nuclear if the Fracking doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 [/color] You don't think 1% of revenue is a fair amount? What % would be[/b]. it would be the same as Joe Public got from North Sea Gas & Oil ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 10:28 ---------- Originally Posted by I1L2T3 View Post Are you suggesting we go 100% nuclear? Best tell Osborne to call a hold on the gas subsidies. Please show me where I suggested that? He can't. But that's typical of your "debating" style - when you cannot find something to criticise let's make up something and then attack that. There are people on here who misconstrue. Also there are people who argue just for the sake of it even when they're supporting the coming rip off over Shale Fracking, they're quite happy to let the fat cats benefit just as long as they can argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 There are people on here who misconstrue. Also there are people who argue just for the sake of it even when they're supporting the coming rip off over Shale Fracking, they're quite happy to let the fat cats benefit just as long as they can argue. Genuine question.. wouldn't we all benefit if fracking gave us a bit more energy security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now