It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If it's not about energy dependence, perhaps it's about "green jobs." But your source says:
“It is nonsense to suggest that renewables are about energy dependence and that this is a good thing."
All right, it's not about energy independence or green jobs. Surely reducing carbon dioxide is important:
Increasing unemployment has seen some politicians promote the concept of creating ‘green jobs’, although Pollitt said this approach is misguided: “It’s nonsense as a policy and the cost of these jobs as subsidies is enormous. If you want to create jobs in the EU you subsidise classroom assistants, you do not subsidise engineers working in the wind turbine industry.”
So, forget energy independence, green jobs, and reduced CO2, how about helping the environment generally, before the disaters predicted for the next 5-20 years occur?
A further rationale for developing renewables is that it will help reduce carbon dioxide pollution, an argument Pollitt refuted. “Supporting renewables from an economic point of view has nothing to do with carbon on its own. An extra wind turbine in Europe makes no difference to the amount of CO2 in Europe,”
I give up. Is there any reason to go with renewables according to your source?
You should subsidise it on the basis that it will produce cheaper electricity not on the basis it might be good for the environment at the moment,” he added, explaining that many of the environmental benefits of renewables would not be felt for decades.
“What you hope for is that the price of the install cost of renewables falls over time and eventually hits fossil fuel parity with pricing, so it’s worth subsidising if that is the case, and it eventually hits parity with conventional sources of electricity generation,”
darkbake I read on the BBC that although nuclear power might supply 2-3 generations with a good source of power, it could potentially affect up to 3,000 generations with the waste generated, not to mention nuclear disasters like Fukushima.
CrankyoldmanNuclear reactors have, and always will be, creators of weapon material. Their byproduct, not their reason for being, their byproduct is heat/steam.
Firstly let us get something clear. There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak.
Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster
Fukushima? Yes they did. Why? The Japanese government introduced a forced evacuation of thousands of people living up to a couple of dozen kilometres from the power station. The stress of moving to collection areas induced heart attacks and other medical problems in many people. So people died because of Fukushima hysteria not because of Fukushima radiation. - See more at: www.cfact.org...
High rates of miscarriage, toxic levels of lead and mercury contamination and spiralling numbers of birth defects ranging from congenital heart defects to brain dysfunctions and malformed limbs have been recorded.
Actually it has a well-documented half-life of 4.468 billion years, it transmutes by Alpha decay to form Thorium, Radium, and Polonium which are all long-range emitters. The amounts created by transmutation are small, but the surface area is huge…
Depleted uranium is TOXIC, not radioactive, just as lead and mercury are.
From the people I know, my understanding is most experts believe U238 to be a cancerous thing (when inhaled-ingested). Like global warming there is a question on to what degree it is bad over e.g. lead, but the people who nearly always lie are the absolutists i.e. those who say…
And I think I'm more inclined to believe a qualified scientist with a verifiable track record than someone pushing more anti-nuclear false facts.
Short of lab controlled, human experimentation there couldn’t be. But there should (over time) be statistical differences in health, and that these will show correlation with exposure. That is all science needs to make informed observations.
There are no records of birth defects or deaths directly attribuatable to radiation exposure there