Ah, that's what Salmond and Sturgeon had in mind when they claim to have a 100% 'renewable' energy in an independent Scotland by 2020.
Sounds a bit fishy to me!
Greenpeace: Arctic 30
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Ah, that's what Salmond and Sturgeon had in mind when they claim to have a 100% 'renewable' energy in an independent Scotland by 2020.
Sounds a bit fishy to me!
Sponsored Links
Greenpeace has been shown to be wrong on a large number of issues. They are anti-science, and are ideologically driven. In other words, they care not for truth.
Even their former leaders have come out in favour of nuclear power.
I've shown you credible evidence. You have shown emoticons.
Ah, so it's ok to give a child cancer!
It's is however reassuring to know that when confronted with facts, the old 'exaggeration' argument comes into play...
If you want to know what exaggeration is, maybe you ought to look at the claims of 'almost free' nuclear energy, and no need to worry about the 'decommissioning costs' (£80bn and rising fast)...
Now that is the real exaggeration!
Well done at completely misinterpretting a post. I pointed out that death rates are nothing like reported by the fearmongers. At no point did I say it was ok to infect children.
And your strawman argument of "free energy" is a cliched attempt at mud slinging. BTW, the decommissioning costs are for ALL old nuclear plants. Not much when compared to the energy a new plant chucks out. What was your point again?
You are clearly clutching at straws.
When stuck for facts, launch into hyperbole. So much wrong in one link, its almost an achievement.
A bit like the old lawyers saying: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table"
Sponsored Links
I'm no great fan of the nuclear option but on your point here I have to agree. Any generation system be it nuclear or renewables should be British owned and run. As Dale Vince says it really should be nationalised and run for the benifit of the country rather than to make foreign bank accounts fatter.
I'm also dubious of some of the figures this government gives out, I heard Cam-moron on the radio news this morning saying how good a deal it was and how it may (?) lead to lower bills. Perhaps that's why he's not in favour of wind turbines, don't want all those pigs being caught in the blades.
Lets have a look at that shall we..."While there was an increase in thyroid cancers in children shortly after, these were largely treatable. There were some child deaths that were entirely avoidable."
So what point exactly were YOU trying to make about being 'entirely avoidable'?...(they could of course have been 'entirely avoidable', but that would have meant no contact with radiation...
)You sound just like a nuclear energy company spokesman!
As much as you hate it, it's true though...
Just like all the cost analyses for the new plants will end up as 'pie in the sky'...
So what do you reckon will be the total subsidy the taxpayer will be forced to put into private pockets for all the plants you say we would need if the subsidy for one plant will be £1bn/yr? (although given governments' history in lying about subsidies, that figure will at least double)
Really...So come on then. Come up with the final definative cost (you won't because you can't - but hey what's the difference in tens of billions of pounds between yearly lies!)
And I'm assuming that each of the new plants will require decommissioning in the long run too...How much will that cost us?
You nuclear apologists make me laugh!
We may have been in better shape, had it not being for the Tories refusal for a loan to Forgemasters in 2010:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/18/sheffield-forgemasters-loan-new-nuclear
Why is it that whenever the government is involved, they seem to always manage to do the right thing in the wrong way?
Just been watching the bit about the new Hinckley nuclear station, which is great news. . .
Except why are the French building it with Chinese money FFS?
"Saving the British taxpayer umpteen billions" they said.
Indeed the government won't have to find the money from their (our) pockets! Instead we will pay many times over for it as profit to foreign businesses through our energy bills at an inflated agreed price!
Just been watching the bit about the new Hinckley nuclear station, which is great news. . .
Except why are the French building it with Chinese money FFS?
"Saving the British taxpayer umpteen billions" they said.
Indeed the government won't have to find the money from their (our) pockets! Instead we will pay many times over for it as profit to foreign businesses through our energy bills at an inflated agreed price!
I'll try to keep it simple for you.
Lets have a look at that shall we..."While there was an increase in thyroid cancers in children shortly after, these were largely treatable. There were some child deaths that were entirely avoidable."
So what point exactly were YOU trying to make about being 'entirely avoidable'?...(they could of course have been 'entirely avoidable', but that would have meant no contact with radiation...
You pointed out Chernobyl as some kind of arguement against modern nuclear power (ignoring the incompatability of that argument). I pointed out that deaths have been exaggerated, and provided evidence that the impact was not nearly as bad as the anti-nuke lobby make out.
But of course, we can't ignore the fact that such an event cannot happen to GenIII and GenIV reactors. Even Fukushima was an out dated design, and this was even known.
So basically, your argument has rested on outdated or wrong information.
No, just not an alarmist.
Show one company or person who claims that regarding any modern reactor. If you can't, you have a strawman argument.As much as you hate it, it's true though...
If its that expensive, its funny how France has some of the cheapest electricity in Europe.
Big capital costs and cheap running costs is what you have with nuclear. Not unlike wind and solar, except nuclear power provides a baseload supply, and kills less people.
Just as well, since it's obvious you are the one who doesn't understand the facts...
You have provided no such evidence, and guess what...
Those plants were 'modern' in their day...
So can you provide me with a caste iron guarantee that the next generation of plants are free of all contamination risks?...(you won't because you can't - a repeating theme it seems!)
Your proof of this please?
I'm just a realist...
Read my posts again regarding past claims and current pricing...you seem to have your wires crossed
Funny thing about that...it's all to do with energy supply structures and subsidies again based on political dogma...
Proof required again...
You of course ignore the 'after costs'...
And I'd love to see you figures on directly related death rates!
No. Chernobyl was a known problem by Western engineers.
Fukushima has long been known to be an outdated design.
You should also note that other nuclear in that area actually shutdown. All (including Fukushima) were not affected by the Earthquake, and many lessons have been learnt from the incident.
Your attitude is that because something bad happened at one incdent, we cannot use it again. Well guess what, society learns from these lesson. Nuclear power continues to be the safest form of energy we currently have, and the numbers I have provided show this.
Don't like manmade death & disease? Fine, fight to ban cars, smoking and coal fired power stations, as they are far more hazardous.
Or maybe look at how dangerous flying used to be, and ignore how safe it is now now?
Ask yourself this: how many died at Fukushima? Given what we know from Chernobyl, it is unlikely in the extreme that we will see any increase in deaths in the future. Infact the biggest danger is the stress brought on by alarmists to the local population.
http://joanpyeproject.org/fukushima-accident-risks/
I deal with risk. And nuclear poses the least risk to the population.
The alternative for the application in hand is coal. Some countries have hydro as an alternative, but that has its own problems, and the Uk doesn't even have that option for a baseload supply. (Tidal power won't cut it).
As soemone who lives downwind of 3 very big coal power stations, and seen the waste and pollution from them, I should know.
Nuclear power is safer. End of story.
Modern reactors already have the basic systems in place that would have prevented Fukushima. Chernobyl was already known to be a flawed design by the West for years before hand.
I should also add that Fukushima Daini 1, 2, 3, 4, Tohoku's Onagawa 1, 2, 3, and Japco's Tokai all successfully shutdown following the Earthquake.
Fukushima Daini was also subject to the tsunami that Fukushima Daiichi was, but coped better.
The UK is not at risk from high magnitude earthquakes, or major tsunamis, so I fail to see what risk you are worried about. Even terrorists do not pose the risk you think, as they go for easier targets - like people.
Already have. Of course I assumed you already knew that they have low running costs, but consider the fact that they run at full capacity for most of the time, while you get about 20-30% capacity factor for wind. And a nuclear plant lasts about 60 years (Wind and 25 years), and all types of energy generation require capital costs and decommissioning costs, you can see that nuclear power comes out far more favourably than you would like.
Because nuclear generates so much, it is worthwhile.
That's the simplified version. More here:
"Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
No I don't. In fact I addressed this.
The decommissioning costs are likely to be less for future designs, as that will be considered in the initial design (not something old reactor designs saw). And the fact that sites can be used again for future reactors, after old ones have been removed, thus saving again on decommissioning.
Go back a few pages for death rates.
Lies.
lies again..
It will never be safe. End of story.
30 years of electric then 300 years of pollution.
The following tells you all you need to know about nuclear energy..
Google wrote
Glad I live in country that will never need or use it...
There is also the point that lots of industrial processes rely absolutely on a continuous, and often large supply of electricity. For example, furnaces used for steel processing and making can't be simply turned off and on at will. At best the material being processed would be spoiled, at worst the furnace itself would be ruined. We don't have a fraction of the manufacturing we once had, but we still have some. Other things that spring to mind are food storage, and I expect food production too. Lots of continuous processes for all sorts of industries can't be turned off at will. Hospitals rely on a continuous supply, as do trains. The list goes on and on. Some of these will have emergency generators, but they are costly to run, and certainly not "green"
There is no practical way of storing large amounts of electricity at present, and a lot of the loads I've said about above are all day, every day. So any generator that is incapable of generating all the time can only really be used as a top up. If the power went off in a big way for days at a time, government would lose control of what was happening. Food would spoil and be in short supply, and industry would grind to a halt. In Wintertime when it is most likely to happen, people would be hungry, and cold. The streets would be dark. I wonder what would happen then?
We need these nuclear power stations, and we need them now. Thankfully it looks as if no matter how hard the politicians have tried to borax it up, we will still get them.
There is no practical way of storing large amounts of electricity at present, and a lot of the loads I've said about above are all day, every day. So any generator that is incapable of generating all the time can only really be used as a top up. If the power went off in a big way for days at a time, government would lose control of what was happening. Food would spoil and be in short supply, and industry would grind to a halt. In Wintertime when it is most likely to happen, people would be hungry, and cold. The streets would be dark. I wonder what would happen then?
We need these nuclear power stations, and we need them now. Thankfully it looks as if no matter how hard the politicians have tried to borax it up, we will still get them.
Most of what you post is lies and to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
Re Chernobyl...
Some sources put the deaths closer to 1 million!
Also...
@wobs...
I have noted that every time I have asked you for definitive figures/facts/costs you have waffled on and on, and yet refused to reply to simple questions...
That is because you don't have any answers to the questions I have posed, and nor does the nuclear industry!
You seem to think that there is no risk...But the long term fatalities (despite your protestations) say otherwise!
So maybe you will simply answer me this...Would you take your kids (if you have any) or encourage anyone with kids to take them within the exclusion zones of Chernobyl or Fukishima?
Yes or No?
I have noted that every time I have asked you for definitive figures/facts/costs you have waffled on and on, and yet refused to reply to simple questions...
That is because you don't have any answers to the questions I have posed, and nor does the nuclear industry!
You seem to think that there is no risk...But the long term fatalities (despite your protestations) say otherwise!
So maybe you will simply answer me this...Would you take your kids (if you have any) or encourage anyone with kids to take them within the exclusion zones of Chernobyl or Fukishima?
Yes or No?
Sponsored Links
