Westinghouse Europe President - Nuclear is the safest of all energy alternatives

sheesh thats idiotic...

I guess no ones told him about tidal generators. Zilch environmental impact and the moon aint going anywhere soon, and you dont see them since they are under the water. They cant kill marine life and they become minor habitats for marine life to boot, and the energy they can produce is impressive... sure they cost a bit to set up but pay for themselves in no time.

But everyone forgets about em... the sooner we go Tidal the better in my opinion.

Everyone with any ability to make the changes are so afraid of the initial costs they'll keep on going with what they have already till the well runs dry and then they'll bitch when everything comes to a halt. The pursuit of money, its stuffing us up, its always been stuffing us up...

reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone


current reactors use mainly uranium or plutonium . in the 60s there was a reactor fueled by thorium in oak land national laboratory .
www.wired.com...

we can make them , india and china are making them and it has great benifits like no high toxic waste and no means of making bombs of them.

its a great step until we get fusion and later on anti mater reactors.

reply to post by WatchRider

wrong !
its such a low, uneducted start to any discusion, however if thats your highest start to a reply
jp morgan rescued tessla not westinghouse
I agree with you nuclear energy, when used corectly , is a good source of energy, however i doubt that any nuclear plant has been built correctly and in your ignorance you show a high inability to understand that there are many eartquakes in europe and i know from exprience that this has not been taken into account in at least one nuclear reactor in the uk , i should know i live within 6 miles of it still maybe im wrong! in your little world !

reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone


No, he means that we haven't discovered fusion yet. We currently use nuclear fission


reply to post by Cobaltic1978

But my question would be, is Nuclear safer than solar power? Safer than Wind Power? Maybe more productive, but not safer. Therefore this man's statement is totally false, a BIG fail. Peace.

If we talk about this in the amount of deaths per Terawatt hour then yes.



Deaths per Terawatt Hour By Energy Source

reply to post by Griffo


Interesting, having taken a look at the link, it makes a fair point. However, these technolgies are in their infancy and mistakes will hopefully be learned.

I think we can safely say that those figures will dramtically change once the full extent of the Japan disaster is realised.

I don't even know how someone could be so DUMB. If you drew a picture of a nuclear reactor, then drew a picture of a windmill and asked a CHILD which one was safer, I'm sure we all know which one the child would choose. Apparently, and this is news to me, energy that doesn't have money to be made off its use is 'unsafe'. At least according to these morons, nuclear energy is safer than Tesla Technology. Someone needs to make these people go live right next to their so-called "safe energy" and see how long they hold that horribly misguided opinion.

hes right it is the safest.............untill it goes wrong.

reply to post by Vortiki


I don't think you will find many of TPTB settling down near any of these installations. Of course nuclear will be shown to be safer as so much money has been invested in safety. Unfortunately though not every risk can be accounted for and when things go wrong, they go wrong BIG time.