Should we rely on nuclear energy? [ENDS 24/04/2011]

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think most people are now in agreement which is resassuring, as only a few years ago it was the minority which held this view with the rest of us all fooled into the cult of anthropogenic global warming. I support a nuclear industry not because of carbon and all of that nonsense, but because of energy security. I do not think it wise to rely on the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and other nations for our energy and I doubt anybody here would also think that (see the example of Ukraine). It is interesting to note, that whatever we do - the lights are going to go off thanks to the EU energy policy of which we are bound by (see below) which is impossible to achieve. I know people get rather sick of hearing this and think i'm pinning the blame on the donkey, but sadly its true - these issues are now fundementally linked with our membership.



Now as for renewables concerning wind farms, not one single coal or gas fired power plant has closed anywhere in the world so that is a dead end, they do not work. They do not work in low pressure weather systems (cold winter days, hot summer days) and they can only operate in certain temperatures when electricity is needed. Wind turbines need coal and gas power stations to back them up, they are nothing but an expensive waste of money hence why the figures now show that our energy bills are 1/3 higher than they should be thanks to the government (told to do so by the EU) so install these subsidised ugly and useless machines.

Sadly the people in office are people like Mr Kirkhope, so a return to the 1970s huddled around gas hobs and candles looks very likely.

[Technologic]

I think most people are now in agreement which is resassuring, as only a few years ago it was the minority which held this view with the rest of us all fooled into the cult of anthropogenic global warming. I support a nuclear industry not because of carbon and all of that nonsense, but because of energy security. I do not think it wise to rely on the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and other nations for our energy and I doubt anybody here would also think that (see the example of Ukraine). It is interesting to note, that whatever we do - the lights are going to go off thanks to the EU energy policy of which we are bound by (see below) which is impossible to achieve. I know people get rather sick of hearing this and think i'm pinning the blame on the donkey, but sadly its true - these issues are now fundementally linked with our membership.



Now as for renewables concerning wind farms, not one single coal or gas fired power plant has closed anywhere in the world so that is a dead end, they do not work. They do not work in low pressure weather systems (cold winter days, hot summer days) and they can only operate in certain temperatures when electricity is needed. Wind turbines need coal and gas power stations to back them up, they are nothing but an expensive waste of money hence why the figures now show that our energy bills are 1/3 higher than they should be thanks to the government (told to do so by the EU) so install these subsidised ugly and useless machines.

Sadly the people in office are people like Mr Kirkhope, so a return to the 1970s huddled around gas hobs and candles looks very likely.

Acid rain and rising water pH is a major problem caused by coal plants but I guess that doesn't matter....

[-:Undertaker:-]

Acid rain and rising water pH is a major problem caused by coal plants but I guess that doesn't matter....

I don't believe i'm arguing here for more coal plants so what is your point?

[AgnesIO]

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?
Nobody has died from Japan's radiation mess, but aren't they still on edge about another explosion?

Please tell me these.

[Syphon]

I don't believe i'm arguing here for more coal plants so what is your point?

I believe his point is that nuclear power doesn't give off any of these making it one of the cleanest energy sources that has the capability to give off so much energy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I believe his point is that nuclear power doesn't give off any of these making it one of the cleanest energy sources that has the capability to give off so much energy.

Well no idea why the response was addressed to me because thats exactly what i'm arguing for.

..and besides it's not all that true with coal fired power stations which are fitted with filters (developed nations) although is a problem in developing nations as they usually do not install them.. but thats a matter for them, oil/gas/coal remain the best sources of energy for poorer nations as they can be built in such a short space of time.

[GommeInc]

Well no idea why the response was addressed to me because thats exactly what i'm arguing for.

..and besides it's not all that true with coal fired power stations which are fitted with filters (developed nations) although is a problem in developing nations as they usually do not install them.. but thats a matter for them, oil/gas/coal remain the best sources of energy for poorer nations as they can be built in such a short space of time.

After reading what he said it does look like his claim was supporting your reasoning. People prefer coal, but for some reason they completely ignore the fact that coal causes high pH levels and acid rain, and is incredibly messy. It's how I read it at least, though I can see how it looks like he was against you

[luce]

All the major disasters have come about through human error in some way so i don't think it's the nuclear energy that is the problem the plants have the capability to be safe however I don't think i trust the people running it to be able to do a safe job! Ideally we need to develop the technology to move onto fusion not fission and also to an element which has a shorter half life so the waste material isn't as radioactive for as long which also reduces the risk. So as the state of play is now, no i don't think we should rely on it however with a couple of changes i think it could be a good source of energy as traditional fuels are running out.

[AgnesIO]

All the major disasters have come about through human error in some way so i don't think it's the nuclear energy that is the problem the plants have the capability to be safe however I don't think i trust the people running it to be able to do a safe job! Ideally we need to develop the technology to move onto fusion not fission and also to an element which has a shorter half life so the waste material isn't as radioactive for as long which also reduces the risk. So as the state of play is now, no i don't think we should rely on it however with a couple of changes i think it could be a good source of energy as traditional fuels are running out.

What tsunamis are humans fault?

[luce]

What tsunamis are humans fault?

Don't build a power plant on a fault line. Simple but it you want an answer no they're not, obviously, however the way it was dealt with afterwards was bordering embarrassing. The melt down warnings have been inconsistent and the radiation readings are unreliable.