Hackers 'expose global warming con'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

Nuclear power plants can run for 40 years ish, which isn't really a long-term solution.

---

That is a long-term solution, newer plants could probably live longer than the 40 year lifespan and the area which housed the older reactor can be used to house the new reactor (as it going to happen with current government plans). Wind Turbines only have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years, and dont make the costs back aswell as being inefficent. If you can find a source of energy that lasts longer than 40 years then please do tell us, but for now in the real world nuclear is the longest and most sustainable solution.

Quote:

---

Yeah, nuclear is one of the best solutions at the moment, however nuclear is dangerous and could be targetted by terrorists as such.

Also I think we need to research into more hydrogen and water power.

---

Nuclear Power is not dangerous, the Soviet Reactor in Chernobyl had a meltdown due to its poor design and a test which went terribly wrong, as for terrorism - I wouldn't worry too much about terrorism, and besides, theres not much a terrorist would be able to do to a nuclear power plant as it would require a team of people to operate/change things within it, and firing something as the reactor wouldn't do anything either as they are built to withstand the worst of scenarios. In some parts of the United Kingdom, they are closer to a French reactor than a British reactor, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of different if there was a meltdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

And a natural cycle suddenly crops up rather quickly in the last 25 years does it?

---

Yeah the only ice age that there has ever been was 25 years ago. My bad :rolleyes:.

Do me a favour? Find a thread where you have a chance of constructing a valid point to contribute. It's clearly not working here nor in that BNP thread lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That is a long-term solution, newer plants could probably live longer than the 40 year lifespan and the area which housed the older reactor can be used to house the new reactor (as it going to happen with current government plans). Wind Turbines only have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years, and dont make the costs back aswell as being inefficent. If you can find a source of energy that lasts longer than 40 years then please do tell us, but for now in the real world nuclear is the longest and most sustainable solution.

Nuclear Power is not dangerous, the Soviet Reactor in Chernobyl had a meltdown due to its poor design and a test which went terribly wrong, as for terrorism - I wouldn't worry too much about terrorism, and besides, theres not much a terrorist would be able to do to a nuclear power plant as it would require a team of people to operate/change things within it, and firing something as the reactor wouldn't do anything either as they are built to withstand the worst of scenarios. In some parts of the United Kingdom, they are closer to a French reactor than a British reactor, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of different if there was a meltdown.

---

Nuclear power is dangerous. If it isn't, why do they need machines the operate in it? Why is it toxic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio

Yeah the only ice age that there has ever been was 25 years ago. My bad :rolleyes:.

Do me a favour? Find a thread where you have a chance of constructing a valid point to contribute. It's clearly not working here nor in that BNP thread lol.

---

I'll work on my points, you work on yours, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidAciid

In a simplified nutshell, what is all of this saying?

---

Simply global warming is killing the world and People are making a big joke out of it$

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

Nuclear power is dangerous. If it isn't, why do they need machines the operate in it? Why is it toxic?

---

They need machines to operate oil/gas/turbines and crude oil is also toxic. Give me a detailed and sensible reason why we should not build nuclear power plants despite this country heading for a energy crisis and after all, what is the alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They need machines to operate oil/gas/turbines and crude oil is also toxic. Give me a detailed and sensible reason why we should not build nuclear power plants despite this country heading for a energy crisis and after all, what is the alternative?

---

My turn!!! YEYEYYYY

Because its radiation, crude oil is only "dangerous" in the sea as it kills wildlife, a simple leakage in a powerplant isn't going to be dangerous.

Radiation on a power plants scale can take up to around 50 - 75 years to become stable again. And the danger is, the machines that function it can go wrong, if the prod doesn't go in every so often it won't absorb the radiation resulting in a build up of heat, which will cause machine problems throughout, and if it blows the site would be evacuated and the rest of the uranium on site would also radiate the area.

So thats why nuclear power is bad.

and at "fossil fuels have hundreds of years left" take into account, fuel is about to run out in around 10-30 years. Then gas is what? 75, but after fuel runs out you have to take into account more gas would be used, so that would reduce its life by about 1/3rd. Then we'd resort to coal which is predicted to run out in 250 years time, but with no fuel and gas, its bound to shorten to about 100 years.

So yeah, we have 100 years left, but life does go on after your own death.

And at the point of "this country not having nuclear power plants" is because we have very little space to build them, build them in a city (n) if it went wrong, we've lost around 40square miles of land. And most of the uk is populated, and that of it which isn't is hills or natural reserve, so thats why building nuclear powerplants in england would also be bad.

What he said ^

But can I add that with Nuclear, you don't think it's dangerous? Meltdowns?

Right ok so nuclear power plants make radiation -> radiation causes cancer -> cancer causes death. If anyone came into contact with the nuclear waste then they'd suffer from the radiation too.

With the terrorism thing, this is still a factor. Nuclear is dangerous, that's a fact. They get control of a reactor -> cause a meltdown -> kill thousands of people.

This could happen.

Quote:

---

My turn!!! YEYEYYYY

Because its radiation, crude oil is only "dangerous" in the sea as it kills wildlife, a simple leakage in a powerplant isn't going to be dangerous.

---

Crude oil can be dangerous whereever spilt, of course radiation is more harmful but oil and gas aren't safe either.

Quote:

---

Radiation on a power plants scale can take up to around 50 - 75 years to become stable again. And the danger is, the machines that function it can go wrong, if the prod doesn't go in every so often it won't absorb the radiation resulting in a build up of heat, which will cause machine problems throughout, and if it blows the site would be evacuated and the rest of the uranium on site would also radiate the area.

So thats why nuclear power is bad.

---

That won't happen though, it'd be like me saying we should get rid of our nulcear arsenal because one day we might just say 'hey cba tonight' and the submarine then goes into meltdown - will not happen. I would understand if it had happened before in the west, or even anywhere in the world but its never happened like you just said.

Quote:

---

and at "fossil fuels have hundreds of years left" take into account, fuel is about to run out in around 10-30 years. Then gas is what? 75, but after fuel runs out you have to take into account more gas would be used, so that would reduce its life by about 1/3rd. Then we'd resort to coal which is predicted to run out in 250 years time, but with no fuel and gas, its bound to shorten to about 100 years.

---

Wrong. At the present time we only use around half a oil well when we find it because the other half is economically unviable at the present to drill up. We have just found massive oil fields off the coast of the Falklands, the Poles, Siberia and the Middle East and Northern Africa are still bloated with the stuff.

Oil and gas have at least another 100 years.

Quote:

---

So yeah, we have 100 years left, but life does go on after your own death.

And at the point of "this country not having nuclear power plants" is because we have very little space to build them, build them in a city (n) if it went wrong, we've lost around 40square miles of land. And most of the uk is populated, and that of it which isn't is hills or natural reserve, so thats why building nuclear powerplants in england would also be bad.

---

We do not have little space, otherwise the government would not be building them now. The existing sites can be re-housed to possibly house 2 plants on them sites, along with many other sites on which oil/gas sits currently operated - they can also be used. You are now using every excuse under the book to deride nuclear, there is no other option.

If we did have a meltdown, if we did, it would make no difference/be increaseed by the fact we had nuclear power plants by us - why? - because we have our Trident nuclear submarines coming into ports every few months to re-stock/fuel, we already have nuclear power plants and finally France has power plants which are in some cases, closer to some parts of the United Kingdom than British reactors are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

What he said ^

But can I add that with Nuclear, you don't think it's dangerous? Meltdowns?

Right ok so nuclear power plants make radiation -> radiation causes cancer -> cancer causes death. If anyone came into contact with the nuclear waste then they'd suffer from the radiation too.

With the terrorism thing, this is still a factor. Nuclear is dangerous, that's a fact. They get control of a reactor -> cause a meltdown -> kill thousands of people.

This could happen.

---

What meltdowns? - the only meltdown in history I have explained so don't bring up Chernobyl again. On the waste issue, nobody would come into contact with nuclear waste - so what exactly is your point?. If we all go and roll around in the stuff then yes we would get cancer, what else would you expect.

On the terrorist plot, i'm interested in how a terrorist could cause a meltdown, please do explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Crude oil can be dangerous whereever spilt, of course radiation is more harmful but oil and gas aren't safe either.



That won't happen though, it'd be like me saying we should get rid of our nulcear arsenal because one day we might just say 'hey cba tonight' and the submarine then goes into meltdown - will not happen. I would understand if it had happened before in the west, or even anywhere in the world but its never happened like you just said.



Wrong. At the present time we only use around half a oil well when we find it because the other half is economically unviable at the present to drill up. We have just found massive oil fields off the coast of the Falklands, the Poles, Siberia and the Middle East and Northern Africa are still bloated with the stuff.

Oil and gas have at least another 100 years.



We do not have little space, otherwise the government would not be building them now. The existing sites can be re-housed to possibly house 2 plants on them sites, along with many other sites on which oil/gas sits currently operated - they can also be used. You are now using every excuse under the book to deride nuclear, there is no other option.

If we did have a meltdown, if we did, it would make no difference/be increaseed by the fact we had nuclear power plants by us - why? - because we have our Trident nuclear submarines coming into ports every few months to re-stock/fuel, we already have nuclear power plants and finally France has power plants which are in some cases, closer to some parts of the United Kingdom than British reactors are.



What meltdowns? - the only meltdown in history I have explained so don't bring up Chernobyl again. On the waste issue, nobody would come into contact with nuclear waste - so what exactly is your point?. If we all go and roll around in the stuff then yes we would get cancer, what else would you expect.

On the terrorist plot, i'm interested in how a terrorist could cause a meltdown, please do explain.

---

I didn't say other meltdowns, I said they can be caused.

I know it seems funny, but some radiation/chemical traces from the Russia meltdown were found in N.Wales! Just imagined if it was caused again closer to home.

If a terrorist say, somehow comprimised the security of a plant, got in and planted a bomb in there, it exploded and then radiation leaked out. We're in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

I didn't say other meltdowns, I said they can be caused.

I know it seems funny, but some radiation/chemical traces from the Russia meltdown were found in N.Wales! Just imagined if it was caused again closer to home.

If a terrorist say, somehow comprimised the security of a plant, got in and planted a bomb in there, it exploded and then radiation leaked out. We're in trouble.

---

I know it was found in Wales, which is my point; if one of these did go off in France, it would be the same effect as one going off here. The same with our Trident submarines. We are surrounded by nuclear power so that if one of them did go off, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether it was a plant of the coast of France, a plant in Liverpool or a Trident submarine in Bristol.

On that last case, the reactors are that strong the only force which could partially destroy one would be something equal to the force of the reactor overrheating itself, and terrorists don't have any weapons that powerful.