It bears repeating
Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss... Breeder reactors .

It meets all the requirements safe non-polluting clean reliable energy .It can easily bridge the gap between the industrial age and utopia.

Evening Tom

I agree that nuclear energy is the key at the moment to the worlds energy, but isn't it better to explore all avenues first before we go nuclear?

After all, if a wind turbine explodes, maybe a sheep is going to get it, but a nuclear disaster is a little less forgiving

And who wants to live next to a nuclear plant?

Quote:

---

isn't it better to explore all avenues first before we go nuclear?

---

Nope .it's available ,it's proven . The French supply most of their energy with efficient Breeder Reactors and I don't see the plume over Paris.
Wind turbines are over rated . Just ask T Boone Pickens .He was gung ho wind turbines last year . This year he says we should tap Iraqi oil.
Someone better do a good job convincing me that alternatives besides nukes will ever be more than a fringe 10% solution.

I agree with your statements accept, the french have convienently placed most of their reactors near the English Channel and any fall out will come our way :(

Nuclear is proven, probably the future, but surely an oppurtunity to make the case for green energy is justified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

And who wants to live next to a nuclear plant?

---

So that the power doesn't go out in bad weather

So the electric bill is less than the mortgage payment

So the high school dropouts have a job mowing grass on the safety berms

So the high school graduates have apprenticeship jobs available

I can't imagine. Of course I am excluding the plants using the French design responsible for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

but surely an oppurtunity to make the case for green energy is justified?

---

Sure, for automotive and maybe even aviation use. But not for powering large regional electric grids.

Elliot

Again I do not oppose it .
Do the R&D and when it is viable in the market you'll see us all rush to sign on.

Those vaunted gvt subsidies you talk about however are nothing more than a form of protectionism . Our gvt has subsidized corn ethanol for a long time now and it is an unmitigated disaster;causing disrupting of all types in food and fuel markets both here and abroad(including the Mexicans who should be spitting blood at us over the practice ).

Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?

Quote:

---

Of course I am excluding the plants using the French design responsible for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

---

I don't think that Chernobly was a French design. Three Mile Island wasn't even close to a disaster . It was an easily contained event. But besides that ,it was not a breeder reactor.

Breeders reuse the waste to a point that waste is almost nonexistant.. without the long half life that reactors in the US generate.

Quote:

---

Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?

---

Already live within the evacuation range of one. They were building one on Long Island when I was younger . That project was funding the whole school district . It was great for the community . But neighboring communities made an issue about evacuation so the project was scrubbed . Now LI has terrible generation issues. Projects like windmills in the ocean have gone nowhere. No one wants their site lines disturbed.

I appreciate the point that nobidy wants to live anywhere other than natural beauty, but it's a simple choice, andif you are happy to live near one, then it means I don't have to

NIMBY is a plague . People think that electricity comes from wires to their house and are not even remotely aware of what it takes to get there .

We need more energy to fuel existing economies and emerging ones ,not less .The way I see it ;all hands on deck . Exploit all of them and let the market decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?

---

Nope.

We New Yorkers already have Indian Point (Westchester County), FitzPatrick (Oswego County, upstate), Ginna (Wayne County, 20 miles north of Rochester), 9 Mile Point (also in Oswego County), and we used to have Shoreham (Suffolk County), till it was shut down. (Tom and I are just a stone's throw away from Indian Point and Shoreham.)

Right next door in New Jersey, we've got Hope Creek (Salem County, southern part of NJ), Oyster Creek (Ocean County, central NJ), and Salem (Salem County). (I vacation in Ocean County.)

Problem is, they are all running at less than 20% of capacity and barely producing any electricity. If we simply took the 65 or so currently operating reactors and let them operate at 80% of capacity, we could just about solve our national need for electrical energy. They are already built and mostly just standing idle, or close to it. The capital costs would be just about ZERO, because they are already just standing there.

Elliot

Hey phlanx, have you seen this ad on TV?



The UK government is telling creepy climate change bedtime stories to children complete with a drowning dog. Apparently people aren't too happy about that. That's what I was talking about earlier, we need to end this fearmongering about climate change and scaring and using children for such propaganda is just pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Clete,

An ice age can be triggered by the mass of fresh water expanding with the melting of the ice caps pucshing the bodies of sea water further south

It is within the sea water that we have the warm currents that protect us from expanding poles, so when these are pushed south, the fresh water cools quicker and an Ice Age occurs and if it is anything like the animated film, bring it on :)

---

I think it is undesirable to wish for an ice age, after all the place where you live would be frozen solid. I understand the possibilities of shutting down the "Great conveyor" in the North Atlantic, but I doubt man has the ability to do this, something else is involved.

Nope, never saw that advert before speech, but doesn't surprise me

The government here has had a policy for three years on Co2

What it really comes down to is

1. They want more fuel efficient cleaner cars on the road and the big guzzlers to go, for the reasons of increased space in city centres and more car sales

They even stated that winding your window up saves on petrol and therefore less co2 - all good until you feel warm and stick on the aircon!

2. We have not invested in nuclear power or any other source correctly and with a growing population the shortage problem is getting bigger and so to combat that we are being told to reduce or electricity intake

I understand completely the crap that politicians spread, unfortunately it takes a rare breed of a politician who can stand up and say and do the right thing and still win the popularity contest that most politicians get elected on these days

We all know we are being told crap, but that is the way the game is played - the same in France, Germany and especially in the US

You cannot tell someone to change for the better because it is right to do, you have to tell them if they don't change it will be worst for them

As I have said before, accept the fact that all politicians lie, find out for yourself the reason and go with that

Sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I think it is undesirable to wish for an ice age, afterall the place where you live would be frozen solid. I understand the possibilities of shutting down the "Great conveyor" in the North Atlantic, but I doubt man has the ability to do this, something else is involved.

---

The point is it is all hypothetical, the only way to truly know if anybody is right about the whole global warming structure is for a global disaster to occur

Who wants that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

We all know we are being told crap, but that is the way the game is played - the same in France, Germany and especially in the US

---

I knew that when everyone was so hot on Obama and his promises on transparency, ethics, civility and on and on. That lasted until the first full week of his presidency.

Quote:

---

You cannot tell someone to change for the better because it is right to do, you have to tell them if they don't change it will be worst for them

---

Sorry Steve, I'm just not that cynical.

Quote:

---

Sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing

---

Maybe, but I take offense at using children as pawns in this game and I still believe in honesty as the best policy. I'm not a child and it's past time for politicians to both stop treating me like one and acting like one.

I don't know what the stats are for election polls over in the US, but here, local and state elections run at around 30% to 40% turnout of the voting population

This I put down to the fact that most people are sick and tired of the way they are spoken to by politicians and as such don't really care who gets into power as the lie is the same for all

I am stating how politicians play the game, I never said I liked it

I have always wanted to see a politician on a Performace Related Pay, when they state they will get waiting lists down or more people employed, then fine - give a target, and if you achieve it you get 100% pay, if you get 50% of the target then you get your BFH (Bus Fare Home)

I always thought having legislators pay come out of profit was the way to go. Simplistic, but wouldn't it change politics?