Pro-Nuclear Facts MSM Doesn’t Want You to Know

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
What this World Defiantly Needs…
Carbon free electricity offers to solve all mankind’s needs in: Industry & Recycling, Heating, Transportation (e.g. through hydrogen production) and one day in food. At first through hydroponics and grow lights en.wikipedia.org... then even synthetic food production directly. In short: Carbon free electricity offers humanity a sustainable environmental future, together with limitless living standards (quite literally) almost irrespective of how big world population ever became.

What they Don’t Want You to Understand & Later Why…
1. Coal Kills Far More people than nuclear…

Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year.
www.ecomall.com...


2. Coal is often naturally radioactive, see coal plant fined giving radiation exposure

A power plant has overexposed its workers to radiation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a fine. The plant, though, is not a reactor; it runs on coal. green.blogs.nytimes.com...


3. A typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation into the environment than a nuclear one…

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. www.scientificamerican.com...



But among the most intriguing stats that Downs includes in his report is that “the average coal plant releases 100 times more annual radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.” www.cnbc.com...


4. Overall coal kills 4000 times more people than nuclear (per unit of energy generated) and nuclear has killed less than hydroelectric (because of the tendency for dams to burst).

While the official severity of the Fukushima nuclear disaster was raised today, very little attention seems to be expended to the millions of people who will die as a result of coal-related accidents, pollution and climate change. breakthrougheurope.org...


This is all information Google, the Green movement, and green industry (often quite dependent on the cronyism, of their political contacts) does not want you sheeple knowing…
Such as…
5. Out of control coal stream fires emit more CO2 than all cars in America

It is said that the coal fires burning in China alone emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the cars and light trucks in the U.S. www.celsias.com...
This is about 3% of world total CO2 emissions (partly because the hydrogen in gasoline-diesel makes it relatively low carbon intensity (to coal) fuel).

Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning now. The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China. Global coal fire emission are estimated to include 40 tons of mercury going into the atmosphere annually, and three percent of the world's annual CO2emissions. en.wikipedia.org...


6. If you Google: “list of countries by Carbon Dioxide Emissions”, you get the following disclaimer….

The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry.
en.wikipedia.org...
A fuller list (without but the honesty of a disclaimer) is here: www.guardian.co.uk...
The next question then is why? Why not include e.g. deforestation?
Because

deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total” www.appinsys.com...


Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions.[32] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changedeforestation, mainly in tropical areas, could account for up to one-third of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.[33] But recent calculations suggest that carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (excluding peatland emissions) contribute about 12% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with a range from 6 to 17% en.wikipedia.org...

The problem with including this reality in political reality is it contradicts blaming the Western world, for most the world’s problems. That and the countries doing the deforestation would demand money, money that could otherwise be enriching the crony capitalists (friends of politicians) making money from subsidy dependant “green technologies”. Dependant on subsidies because they simply do not (adequately) work.

Why this reality Advocates Nuclear: If we have a corrupt government, that feels the need to enrich corrupt investors with taxpayers money (which unfortunately we do, and realistically always will do until we have say a functional democracy –but which could easily be some century after I’m dead!)
Then advocate nuclear (because it’s established green industry), that delivers better than all the others, and is therefore much less of a waste of taxpayers’ money –corruption problem. I.e. it still enriches the big & powerful, but far more productively. This is realism, and realism is (surely?) much better than “day dreaming”.

7. As well Co2 and radiation, coal also emits vast amounts mercury

In 1999, EPA estimated that approximately 75 tons of mercury were found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury was emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually.

Yet world nuclear (as a percentage of electricity) is actually in very steep decline photos.mongabay.com...

Common Exaggerations About Nuclear…
8. 8 “We only want nuclear reactors because of nuclear weapons”
Although you do not need a nuclear reactor to build a nuclear bomb (can be done solely out of enriched uranium), you do need it to produce e.g. Plutonium. So in the 1950’s & 60’s this statement was true in both the US and UK and (may be in Iran today). But it is no longer true as the UK and US already have more than enough plutonium than they know what to do with…

Britain has 112 tonnes www.world-nuclear-news.org... which is enough to make thousands of nukes, but the UK only has only between 165 and 200 warheads. en.wikipedia.org...

Thankfully plutonium can be turned into reactor fuel, the technology is expensive, but is getting cheaper and certainly coming our way

The multibillion pound project would take plutonium – the residue from the UK's nuclear power plants – and use it as fuel for a 600MW reactor that could provide power for 750,000 homes, according to GE Hitachi.
www.guardian.co.uk...


9. “We can’t build a reactor that’s safe”
Uninformed: The Pebble bed reactor cannot go into meltdown, no matter how, or how rapidly its cooling system is damaged…
en.wikipedia.org...

Its main drawback is it produces a large amount of nuclear waste, because its so highly balanced the build-up of contaminants from Transmutation inevitably has a big effect. Nuclear waste always will be expensive to process, so large amounts have made the Pebble Bed reactor unfashionable. Still there is a way around reactors biggest safety problem (potential meltdown).

10. “We cannot get rid of the nuclear waste”
Firstly (for perspective) you need to ask “how many has nuclear waste killed?” It’s certainly a mere fraction of what nuclear accidents kill, themselves much less than other sources.

Fast breeder reactors have long been good at getting rid of most nuke waste they produce.
en.wikipedia.org...
Another reactor can already get rid of most of what it produces
inhabitat.com...
Another can do it, but the prototype had its funding cancelled

IFR-style reactors produce much less waste than LWR-style reactors, and can even consume other waste as fuel. en.wikipedia.org...

Another type promises to be even better…
www.utexas.edu...

It is however true it will never be cost effective to dispose of all low level waste. But then again if it’s buried in concrete filled, stainless steel barrels, and deep within rock that millions of years old; well… it’s not one of mandkinds biggest problems –nothing like as big as the need to generate carbon free electricity.

The Next Questions is Why?
Why does MSM not want you to know that: (as long as the world’s burning coal) nuclear energy is FAR less threatening to both Mother Earth’s and mankind’s well-being?

I suspect the answer has something to do with the realisation coal is a MUCH bigger industry than nuclear…

In the UK coal is 33%, whilst fossil fuel (“thermal” in this graph) is about 4 times bigger than nuclears 17.9 percent… en.wikipedia.org...:Electricity_production_in_the_UK.PNG
In the US coal is 44.9%, natural gas 23.4, and nuclear 20.3% en.wikipedia.org...:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png
Worldwide coal is 41% of electricity, and nuclear just 15%
www.worldcoal.org...

The Realist Problem with Nuclear Energy Is…
Nuclear reactors age because transmutation (radioactive lead turning into e.g. radioactive gold, or even hydrogen) happens throughout the reactor, and over many decades makes it structurally unstable. Chemically there’s little to know problem as such elements tend to react with their opposite, in proportion to their production.

Problem is half of US reactors are over 30 years old…
money.cnn.com...

And…

An investigation by AP reveals how the industry has found a simple solution to ageing: weaken safety standards until creaking plants meet them
www.guardian.co.uk...


This is bad…
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to be reformed-abolished! It is probably one of the most corrupt, bureaucratic organisations ever!!! On the one hand it takes years to approve a new nuclear reactor designs, whilst China does it (perfectly thoroughly) in around 6 to 12 months…


It is estimated that the NRC would take five years to approve a conventional reactor — that’s stated as a hypothetical because none have ever actually been approved. The idea of dealing with an exotic new technology is enough to give the Commission a nervous breakdown.
www.freerepublic.com...

The NRC is expected to take at least three years to approve it, due to a backlog of applications at the agency discovermagazine.com...:int=1&-C=

The commission voted to immediately approve the design. This unusual step bypasses the usual 30 day waiting period. Why the concern about a 30 day waiting period after taking 4 ½ years to approve the design is unclear.
www.markstechtock.com...


And on the other hand when it comes to the most challenging issue (deciding if existing reactors are can safely continue, or are becoming a threat; they are very much in the industries hands). Little as even more profitable than building new nukes, is keeping old dangerous ones running.

This Said, Consider…

The Problem with Today’s Renewables

1. Coal is the most disgusting form of energy (in all respects). The abundance of opposition for nuclear from “Green” groups, whilst (relative) absence for coal is either an expression of the deepest ignorance, or most undemocratically held political ideologies.
2. Today’s nuclear technology is far superior to the ideas developed in the 1960’s and built in the 1970’s (this applies to all 3 recent nuclear disasters: 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima). Not only that the technology will continue improve virtually indefinitely, and so there should be about as much sense in saying all “nuclear is bad-dangerous” as there is in saying all “electricity is bad-dangerous”

3. Hydroelectric (the most reliable nuclear alternative) has killed more with dam burst, upsets ecosystems, and isn’t available enough.
4. Geothermal is a combination of usually in wrong place, not enough of it (close enough), or not cheap enough.
5. Solar and wind are far from reliable, and the storage costs (or standby gas generators needed to fill gaps in demand) cost too much.
6. Tidal energy works well (but because its dependant on moon cycles) it too inevitably becomes out of rhythm with peak electricity demand times.
9. (The current) biofuels should be renamed “starvation & deforestation fuels” and algae biofuels (whilst promising) are far from cost effective.
10. Electricity producing bacteria seem promising. But yet again cost and scale of production is its biggest enemies.
11. Osmotic power is limited by today’s materials, and may not be adequate enough en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion: Even Chernobyl looks Saintly
Nuclear energy comes in many different technologies, and the safety of each technology is extremely variable. Therefore somebody wishing to build a replica of e.g. Chernobyl will have my full opposition.
And (for the moment) even the best technologies present some risk. But in comparison with coal, even a Chernobyl replica is (matter of fact) verging on being a saintly technology. Because…

Chernobyl’s death toll ranges from an absurd 56 deaths

A United Nations report said Monday that the number of people killed in almost 20 years since the world's worst nuclear accident is 56 - much lower than previously estimated. www.cbc.ca...

Which is less than US coal kills in a day (it’s about 82 people)


Taking in this consideration, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) put the global death toll closer to 27,000 rather than 16,000. ecocentric.blogs.time.com...

18,000 is the maximum number I believe (i.e. just over 6 months of US coal)

Green Peace (long, politically opposed, to nuclear) puts the numbers at 90,000
news.softpedia.com... (3 US coal emissions years)

Some extremists even claim it killed one million, i.e. as many as coal in the us kills in the US (alone) every 33.3 years
climateandcapitalism.com...

The above estimate is an insult to science, and pure money spinner for those who writes books based on little more than fear. But even if it was true (in addition CO2 emissions) one needs to consider the environmental devastation caused by e.g. By Mountain Hilltop Mining en.wikipedia.org...
In addition to permanently destroying wildlife habits, it permanently contaminants the water table, and if CO2 isn’t a problem it’s considered a fact that by the time world coal reserves are burnt, it will be!
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Grammar




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
The problem with nuclear power however, well at least in the UK we simply do not have the money nor the intellectual pool of proffesional scientists who would be to succesfuly operate and maintain up to date nuclear reactors.

So we rely on Coal and Gas. Only 20% of our energy comes from nuclear oddly, even though it really should be the future of energy generation.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
We shouldn't use nuclear power until we can be sure something won't go wrong, and there's a method that can't be turned into nuclear weapons. Cons far out way the pros, look at Fukushima, that's what can go wrong, except it could have much worse consequences.
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


German nuclear reactors are basicaly melt down proof, there nuclear technology is very advanced. They also dont build them on major fault lines, thats a big help.

Nuclear technology is as only as safe as the people who harness it I guess, so you know.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
We shouldn't use nuclear power until we can be sure something won't go wrong, and there's a method that can't be turned into nuclear weapons. Cons far out way the pros, look ta Fukushima, that's what can go wrong, except it could have much worse consequences.
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Fukushima was built near a fault line, and it wasn't designed properly. It was recommended that it be built to withstand 30 foot tidal waves. They built it so it could withstand 10 foot tidal waves. And it was hit by a 25 foot tidal wave. If they had designed it properly, instead of cutting corners so they could save a buck, it would have never happened.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I'm not talking about an earthquake, I'm talking about the potential consequences if ANYTHING should go wrong for any reason. Fukushima was just an example.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


There are over 400 nuclear power stations in operation all over the world right now and hundreds of nuclear powered marine vessels.

And 2 have gone wrong because of extremely serious and grave human error.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
 


There are over 400 nuclear power stations in operation all over the world right now and hundreds of nuclear powered marine vessels.

And 2 have gone wrong because of extremely serious and grave human error.


That's 2 too many, it only takes 1 to cause serious global consequences.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


The point being it is not a fault of the technology, it is a fault with the people who use it and that is soley where the blame lies.

And is 2 disasters too many? Im not really sure if it is.

Thats less than half a percent failure rate.

Pretty good to be honest, better than cars.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
 


The point being it is not a fault of the technology, it is a fault with the people who use it and that is soley where the blame lies.

And is 2 disasters too many? Im not really sure if it is.

Thats less than half a percent failure rate.

Pretty good to be honest, better than cars.


No, you missed the point. It only takes 1 disaster to cause serious global effects, regardless of whether it's human error or not. Any amount of nuclear disasters is by no means "pretty good". Humans will always make mistakes so you can't say "Oh it was just human error, it won't happen again".



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Oh right, so Airplanes, Cruise Liners, Trains, Subways.........1 disaster is one too many right?

Hey I know, lets stop using all those things, thats clearly going to help the planet.

What about the water supply?, thats a mass poisoning waiting to happen, and as you say, people always make mistakes!, human error and all that. Right, thats the water board gone aswell.

See, what you should be campaigning for is safer nuclear awareness and safer nuclear technology, not trying to stop it. Its ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Oh right, so Airplanes, Cruise Liners, Trains, Subways.........1 disaster is one too many right?

Hey I know, lets stop using all those things, thats clearly going to help the planet.

What about the water supply?, thats a mass poisoning waiting to happen, and as you say, people always make mistakes!, human error and all that. Right, thats the water board gone aswell.

See, what you should be campaigning for is safer nuclear awareness and safer nuclear technology, not trying to stop it. Its ridiculous.


...

A plane crash does not have the same consequences as a nuclear disaster.
But yes, 1 is too many, of course it is. So your attitude would be "It's okay that those people died in that plane crash, it doesn't happen often"? That's ridiculous, any disaster is 1 too many. Your examples, however, are not on the same level as a nuclear disaster, no where near.

"See, what you should be campaigning for is safer nuclear awareness and safer nuclear technology, not trying to stop it."

Yes, exactly. That should be done BEFORE putting them up everywhere, that's common sense.

I can see I'm not going to get any point across to you.
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The problem with this technology is the magnitude of the error.

There is no other technology that can do so much damage with no control so quickly, and the damage lasts much longer.

I don't really think I understood the magnitude, until Fukushima, of what could happen.

Yes, all the pros are true, and maybe there is only one con. But that con is big.
And I don't know how to get rid of it.
We can't get rid of it now, yet we have to because the odds are against us.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
SpearMint

I'm not talking about an earthquake, I'm talking about the potential consequences if ANYTHING should go wrong for any reason. Fukushima was just an example.


Fukushima was a specific type of moderated reactor that does not shut down quickly. Although it is commonly used, and worldwide there are many reactors like it (some still in development) there are a couple of things to consider…

1. If it had been a e.g. Pebble Bed Modula Reactor en.wikipedia.org... the accident simply wood not have happened, (due to the laws of physics).
2. It was (also) well known, before the disaster, that this reactor was the wrong design, for the wrong location, and that this reactor also had insufficient defences against its natural environment.

The failings of the Fukushima nuclear reactor were so substantial that three General Electric scientists who helped design the now imperiled reactors resigned from the company.
newsfeed.time.com...–-35-years-ago/

See other known deigns issues: www.nuc.berkeley.edu...

Therefore it’s not like human kinds scientific –nuclear engineering understanding, is either particularly undeveloped, or at fault.

Hasn’t Fukushima simply told a story called “human governance is flawed”? if so: Isn’t the same story true everywhere, and on everything else!? E.g. From them working out what to subsidise to enrich their contacts with, to you installing solar their panels onto your roof, or to cooking on Gas Stove, to crossing the road? But much more seriously...
Why do you (if you do think), a whole category of technology (not all of which is dangerous) and a type of technology that offers to solve 3 of the greatest problems mankind faces today i.e. Environmental Sustainability, Transport, clean water production & possible new methods of food production. Why then (with all these prizes, on offer to all mankind) do you think the deaths of how many people? Should hold up the development for everyone else?
Nuclear hasn’t killed a million people, but even if it had it would still be a heck of less dangerous (in ratio to the electricity generated for human lives lost) than coal, and for that matter hydroelectric (for sure).
Google “deaths per kilowatt hour”
nextbigfuture.com...

For example: China’s Hydroelectric 1975, Banqiao Dam, Disaster killed 171,000
en.wikipedia.org...
Do you oppose hydroelectric? And if not, why not?

3. Hydroelectric is much better than coal, it’s only flaw (apart from potentially bursting!) (in e.g. like a earthquake!!!) is it causes forced evacuations, destroys pre-existing local wildlife ecosystems, prevents migration of certain fish species, and can therefore contribute towards extinctions. Apart from that it’s pretty perfect (reliable electricity is produced) but even it’s more dangerous than nuclear.


The way I see it is the (sudden) deaths hydroelectric produces are far less scary than nuclear ones (which can happen years later). Yes this is a great psychological advantage, for accepting hydroelectric, but...
Surely in the battle for human progression (in a less than politically ideal, or otherwise ideal world) it’s not fear we should be afraid of, but human deaths? And at least when it leaks it creates a real, wildlife zone: www.youtube.com... Surely you agree with me: "Almost all forms of nuclear are much better than coal?"

You said we should wait until…

and there's a method that can't be turned into nuclear weapons.


Three things…
1. If you had gone back in time and shot all the developers of the first atomic bomb there would almost certainly have been a Cold War using conventional weapons (like WW2, but with more evolved killing technology). WW2 killed nearly 50 million warchronicle.com... so there’s a good chance either your own genes would have been radically different (because one parents would be have been dead) or you yourself would be dead today.
2. There are already nuclear reactors which it is very hard to produce an atomic bomb from. All Moderated Nuclear Reactors (reactors where in order to increase the chances of, a neutron splitting another atom, the reactors naturally produced fast neutron radiation, is slowed down by something it travels through (called a moderator). These reactors require low concentrations of fuel (several percent), whilst nukes require high concentrations (over 80-90% depending on warhead size). Moderated reactors are by far the most widely used.
3. And for Thorium Reactors it almost literally impossible to produce a nuclear bomb. Thorium is more abundant than Uranium and so these would be perfect for the future of mankind –developing countries.

So why has it taken so long for thorium to hit the nuclear power agenda? The key reason seems to be that because it can't be used to make a nuclear bomb, it was largely ignored during the Manhattan project and in the development of nuclear power stations that followed.
www.gizmag.com...
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Updated



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Important Update...
The Integral Fast Reactor, kicks ass over the Pebble Bed Reactor, by generating far more electricity, for much less waste. The reason why I’m mentioning it now is because it too has Passive Safety i.e. no moving parts needed, no men in white suits needed to actually pull levers on time…


Self-regulation of the IFR's power level depends mainly on thermal expansion of the fuel which allows more neutrons to escape, damping the chain reaction. LWRs have less effect from thermal expansion of fuel (since much of the core is the neutron moderator) but have strong negative feedback fromDoppler broadening (which acts on thermal and epithermal neutrons, not fast neutrons) and negativevoid coefficient from boiling of the water moderator/coolant; the less dense steam returns fewer and less-thermalized neutrons to the fuel, which are more likely to be captured by U-238 than induce fissions. However, the IFR's positive void coefficient could be reduced to an acceptable level by adding technetium to the core, helping destroy the long-lived fission product technetium-99 by nuclear transmutation in the process.[10]
IFRs are able to withstand both a loss of flow without SCRAM and loss of heat sink without SCRAM. In addition to passive shutdown of the reactor, the convection current generated in the primary coolant system will prevent fuel damage (core meltdown). These capabilities were demonstrated in the EBR-II.[11] The ultimate goal is that no radioactivity will be released under any circumstance.
en.wikipedia.org...


Unfortunately some monkeys elected the Clinton’s into government, and they then cancelled it’s funding. This is a tragedy, but the real reason probably has something to do with no Demo-Rep regime (sincerely) wanting safe, clean, and worst of all cheap energy.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 





Fukushima was built near a fault line, and it wasn't designed properly. It was recommended that it be built to withstand 30 foot tidal waves. They built it so it could withstand 10 foot tidal waves. And it was hit by a 25 foot tidal wave. If they had designed it properly, instead of cutting corners so they could save a buck, it would have never happened.


But that’s the problem... You can’t trust them... they will never build them to a safe standard because it’s all about making money. The fat bloke with a cigar on a yacht in the Caribbean really doesn’t give a crap about radioactive waste being dumped in the ground 2000 miles away.

Every time they build a new nuclear power station they ensure us that they are perfectly safe and provide us with lots of statistics as to why nothing will ever go wrong... You think that when they built Fukushima they said to the public "it should be ok, as long as we don’t get hit with a 25ft wave or lose the cooling pumps" ? Of course not... they probably told everyone how safe they are!!

When a coal power station goes wrong it might kill a few people... when a nuclear power station goes wrong it kills a few million.

Peace.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


I don’t agree with your posts... however you have put a lot of effort and mad a good argument so in the spirit of ATS you get a S+F from me.


It's not that i think you are wrong... in an ideal world with people who actually put safety and honest above profits and fame, i am sure nuclear energy could be a viable option.

Sadly, i don’t trust any of the governments and corporates as far as i could throw them. And that’s the bottom line.... i simply don’t trust them, especially with something as powerful and potential dangerous as this!

Peace



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
The problem with nuclear power however, well at least in the UK we simply do not have the money nor the intellectual pool of proffesional scientists who would be to succesfuly operate and maintain up to date nuclear reactors.

So we rely on Coal and Gas. Only 20% of our energy comes from nuclear oddly, even though it really should be the future of energy generation.


Nothing to do with us either being too stupid or too poor. Entirely political.

a) thatcher privatising the power generation industry causing construction of a raft of cheap gas stations to maximise short term profit at the expense of the nations strategic interest.
b) More than a decade of incompetent dithering government refusing to incentivise correctly for nuclear.
c) Anti nuclear rhetoric by crusties.

At some point being at the mercy of world gas supplies and very little gas reserves will hurt us badly.

edit on 18-5-2012 by justwokeup because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   






But that’s the problem... You can’t trust them... they will never build them to a safe standard because it’s all about making money. The fat bloke with a cigar on a yacht in the Caribbean really doesn’t give a crap about radioactive waste being dumped in the ground 2000 miles away.

edit on 18-5-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)


Thats why the nations power infrastructure should not be private.

Its strategic infrastructure.

The unbalancing of our power generation infrastructure only happened once it was privatised by Mrs Thatcher.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I hated the privatisation that went on in the 80's... However, i don’t trust the governments either. Any of them.

From experimenting on soldiers at Portland Down to releasing viruses on the London underground they have lied to us and hidden the truth.

I say again... i dont trust them.

Peace





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join