Climate Fun

Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!

If you're already a member please log in:

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7

Climate Fun
Tweet Topic Started: Dec 28 2010, 12:23 AM (4,992 Views)
whatsthatonyourback	Jul 10 2012, 01:30 PM Post #76
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Jul 10 2012, 01:10 AM zico Jul 9 2012, 03:08 PM Perfectly safe form of energy, plentiful and mostly climate neutral. Just need a processing station for spent fuel rods, ibrox is empty.. Perfectly safe. Unless there are any of those natural disaster thingies happening at all - there aren't, are there? What was the ahem, fallout from any recent nuclear problems? You've not quite said that nuclear is sustainable, but it's not. We haven't used all the easily available uranium etc, but much like fossil fuels, we will soon if we keep building nuclear power stations.



Setenza	Jul 10 2012, 06:08 PM Post #77
Knitting with only one needle Posts: 6,057 Group: Admin Member #7 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Jul 10 2012, 01:30 PM You've not quite said that nuclear is sustainable, but it's not. We haven't used all the easily available uranium etc, but much like fossil fuels, we will soon if we keep building nuclear power stations. There's comforatably enough for another generation of nuclear power plants though. And a few options to explore for more effiecent reactors, which will conforatably take us into next century.



TheDean	Jul 10 2012, 08:13 PM Post #78
ALLEGEDLY CALICO Posts: 2,117 Group: Members Member #53 Joined: September 18, 2011	They love nuclear in Fukoshima but I've never understood the commercial logic-probably because there isn't any. Government can't afford to build so they are looking for Private sector to do it. Private sector won't build unless Government subsidises (almost infinite) costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. So, Atomkraft? Nein Danke.



Setenza	Jul 10 2012, 09:22 PM Post #79
Knitting with only one needle Posts: 6,057 Group: Admin Member #7 Joined: September 10, 2010	TheDean Jul 10 2012, 08:13 PM They love nuclear in Fukoshima but I've never understood the commercial logic-probably because there isn't any. Government can't afford to build so they are looking for Private sector to do it. Private sector won't build unless Government subsidises (almost infinite) costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. So, Atomkraft? Nein Danke. But who can put a price on the planet...



Skeletor	Jul 11 2012, 03:25 AM Post #80
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Jul 10 2012, 01:30 PM Skeletor Jul 10 2012, 01:10 AM zico Jul 9 2012, 03:08 PM Perfectly safe form of energy, plentiful and mostly climate neutral. Just need a processing station for spent fuel rods, ibrox is empty.. Perfectly safe. Unless there are any of those natural disaster thingies happening at all - there aren't, are there? What was the ahem, fallout from any recent nuclear problems? I don't think measuring the safety should be marked against the fortunate containment of the latest nuclear incident, and moreso the potential for disaster. Speaking as someone who lives on an island battered by natural energy 365 days a year, spending millions of pounds on building a potential toxic death chamber seems the most idiotic method of powering the nation. There's only one way to move forward to the future of energy for me.



whatsthatonyourback	Jul 11 2012, 06:48 AM Post #81
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 03:25 AM whatsthatonyourback Jul 10 2012, 01:30 PM Skeletor Jul 10 2012, 01:10 AM zico Jul 9 2012, 03:08 PM Perfectly safe form of energy, plentiful and mostly climate neutral. Just need a processing station for spent fuel rods, ibrox is empty.. Perfectly safe. Unless there are any of those natural disaster thingies happening at all - there aren't, are there? What was the ahem, fallout from any recent nuclear problems? I don't think measuring the safety should be marked against the fortunate containment of the latest nuclear incident, and moreso the potential for disaster. Speaking as someone who lives on an island battered by natural energy 365 days a year, spending millions of pounds on building a potential toxic death chamber seems the most idiotic method of powering the nation. There's only one way to move forward to the future of energy for me. I'm not a huge fan of nuclear, but framing your argument against it as a "potential toxic death chamber" is ridiculous. Are you more a fan of the "potentially sentient and mobile murderous three-bladed giants" we have built?



Skeletor	Jul 11 2012, 04:26 PM Post #82
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Jul 11 2012, 06:48 AM Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 03:25 AM whatsthatonyourback Jul 10 2012, 01:30 PM Skeletor Jul 10 2012, 01:10 AM zico Jul 9 2012, 03:08 PM Perfectly safe form of energy, plentiful and mostly climate neutral. Just need a processing station for spent fuel rods, ibrox is empty.. Perfectly safe. Unless there are any of those natural disaster thingies happening at all - there aren't, are there? What was the ahem, fallout from any recent nuclear problems? I don't think measuring the safety should be marked against the fortunate containment of the latest nuclear incident, and moreso the potential for disaster. Speaking as someone who lives on an island battered by natural energy 365 days a year, spending millions of pounds on building a potential toxic death chamber seems the most idiotic method of powering the nation. There's only one way to move forward to the future of energy for me. I'm not a huge fan of nuclear, but framing your argument against it as a "potential toxic death chamber" is ridiculous. Are you more a fan of the "potentially sentient and mobile murderous three-bladed giants" we have built? Are there many safety concerns should a windmill start to function irregularly?



Setenza	Jul 11 2012, 05:06 PM Post #83
Knitting with only one needle Posts: 6,057 Group: Admin Member #7 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 04:26 PM Are there many safety concerns should a windmill start to function irregularly?



Skeletor	Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM Post #84
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	Setenza Jul 11 2012, 05:06 PM Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 04:26 PM Are there many safety concerns should a windmill start to function irregularly? How many potentially injured or killed?



findus	Jul 13 2012, 12:38 AM Post #85
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM Setenza Jul 11 2012, 05:06 PM Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 04:26 PM Are there many safety concerns should a windmill start to function irregularly? How many potentially injured or killed? Are they part of the grid keeping a nuclear power station running?



Skeletor	Jul 13 2012, 04:58 AM Post #86
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Jul 13 2012, 12:38 AM Skeletor Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM Setenza Jul 11 2012, 05:06 PM Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 04:26 PM Are there many safety concerns should a windmill start to function irregularly? How many potentially injured or killed? Are they part of the grid keeping a nuclear power station running?



Setenza	Jul 13 2012, 08:57 AM Post #87
Knitting with only one needle Posts: 6,057 Group: Admin Member #7 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM Setenza Jul 11 2012, 05:06 PM Skeletor Jul 11 2012, 04:26 PM Are there many safety concerns should a windmill start to function irregularly? How many potentially injured or killed? I'd say the could take out a large family car, or small bus. Putting up to 20 people at risk. Then there's the fact that in the UK alone, there's nearly 4,000 turbines, which could take out 80,000. Add in the international turrets and we're looking at millions...



Skeletor	Jul 14 2012, 01:05 AM Post #88
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	Setenza Jul 13 2012, 08:57 AM Skeletor Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM How many potentially injured or killed? I'd say the could take out a large family car, or small bus. Putting up to 20 people at risk. Then there's the fact that in the UK alone, there's nearly 4,000 turbines, which could take out 80,000. Add in the international turrets and we're looking at millions... That's a lot of co-incidence in taking out a minibus each time is it not? Now imagine a prolonged earthquake ruptured the reactor in Torness, what now? Is the risk and waste associated worth it when compared with clean, free, renewable energy with low maintenance costs?



Setenza	Jul 14 2012, 12:17 PM Post #89
Knitting with only one needle Posts: 6,057 Group: Admin Member #7 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Jul 14 2012, 01:05 AM Setenza Jul 13 2012, 08:57 AM Skeletor Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM How many potentially injured or killed? I'd say the could take out a large family car, or small bus. Putting up to 20 people at risk. Then there's the fact that in the UK alone, there's nearly 4,000 turbines, which could take out 80,000. Add in the international turrets and we're looking at millions... That's a lot of co-incidence in taking out a minibus each time is it not? Now imagine a prolonged earthquake ruptured the reactor in Torness, what now? Is the risk and waste associated worth it when compared with clean, free, renewable energy with low maintenance costs? To move away from the suspect examples, I don't think there's many people who dislike wind power. Or solar power or other forms of renewables. They're all ways of generating power and have pro's and cons. Wind isn't going to be a stable generation of power and won't be able to meet our demands yet. Neither will solar, but efficency improves over time, so that's good. Right now, I'd take the risk and cost of nuclear. The small and reducing risk of nuclear problems is at a level I'm happy with. Talking about nuclear power station like they are atomic bombs or death chambers doesn't really change that much, since it's not quite true. Also, wind power isn't free, unless they're contstructed and operated by slaves or something.



Skeletor	Jul 14 2012, 10:01 PM Post #90
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	Setenza Jul 14 2012, 12:17 PM Skeletor Jul 14 2012, 01:05 AM Setenza Jul 13 2012, 08:57 AM Skeletor Jul 12 2012, 07:39 PM How many potentially injured or killed? I'd say the could take out a large family car, or small bus. Putting up to 20 people at risk. Then there's the fact that in the UK alone, there's nearly 4,000 turbines, which could take out 80,000. Add in the international turrets and we're looking at millions... That's a lot of co-incidence in taking out a minibus each time is it not? Now imagine a prolonged earthquake ruptured the reactor in Torness, what now? Is the risk and waste associated worth it when compared with clean, free, renewable energy with low maintenance costs? To move away from the suspect examples, I don't think there's many people who dislike wind power. Or solar power or other forms of renewables. They're all ways of generating power and have pro's and cons. Wind isn't going to be a stable generation of power and won't be able to meet our demands yet. Neither will solar, but efficency improves over time, so that's good. Right now, I'd take the risk and cost of nuclear. The small and reducing risk of nuclear problems is at a level I'm happy with. Talking about nuclear power station like they are atomic bombs or death chambers doesn't really change that much, since it's not quite true. Also, wind power isn't free, unless they're contstructed and operated by slaves or something. Describing it as a death chamber was a hyperbole. I don't see nuclear power as a sustainable source of energy, both due to the waste it creates and the massive safety considerations which come with running one. If the money which was, is and will be invested into nuclear technology was invested into the refinement and construction of multiple renewable energy sources, being solar, wind, hydro and bio energies, we'd have an energy network running from free and perpetual resources, requiring only maintenance to sustain. We'd be independent from the countries which dictate our current supply of fuels, and reduced energy prices would allow consumers to reinvest the money saved back into other areas of the economy. Renewable energies are the future and the sooner we stop wasting time and money with interim technologies, the faster we reach the future and advance our antiquated civilisation.

ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7