Azərbaycan dili Bahasa Indonesia Bosanski Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti English Español Français Galego Hrvatski Italiano Latviešu Lietuvių Magyar Malti Mакедонски Nederlands Norsk Polski Português Português BR Românã Slovenčina Srpski Suomi Svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Ελληνικά Български Русский Українська Հայերեն ქართული ენა 中文
Subpage under development, new version coming soon!

Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

We shouldn't built skyscrapers anymore

the comparison is impertinent
I don't do that ;-)
Last time:

Really think about it.

You do not need to be an economist to understand that.

Nuclear waste hast to be stored safely for many of thousands of years. I am sure any human on this planet with some wits will understand how expensive that is. And then try telling me again its alltogether cheaper than alternative energy... No way....


Well and thats just the economic side. Ofc we can leave it be and poison generations slowly
2011-03-15 13:29:24
1. Chernobyl: 1986, now: 2011. Technology improves.
2. Chernobyl: Soviet Union.

No comparison possible imo.


1. Hm, how old are the reactors in Europe?
By far most reactors are from the 1970s and 1980s. Ofc there is technological improvement. However, after Tchernobyl there were very few new reactors built in Europe.

2. So?
2011-03-15 13:33:34
1. Like everything happens still like in the seventies or eighties. I hope not. I suppose they improved their safety precautions and the process itself.

2. I thought Soviet Union said it all. Let's say communist-run Soviet Union wasn't known for reliability of their technology.
As I study economics, I know that's a perpetuity (infinite annuity) of a yearly cost. And yes, I think it is still cheaper.
I didn't say we can get an earthquake in western Europe, I say nature is violent, to violent to call it's save to build something dangerous as nuclear stations, or the storage of the nuclear waste we end up with.
1. Like everything happens still like in the seventies or eighties. I hope not. I suppose they improved their safety precautions and the process itself.

Great word you used, because thats what the people behind the technology leave you with.


People should not hope they should be certain that an accident wont ruin whole countries or generations for decades.
I say nature is violent, to violent to call it's save to build something dangerous as nuclear stations, or the storage of the nuclear waste we end up with.

Not where we live. In other parts of the world, true, but not in our Low Countries.
It was just an expression ... I can't imagine they wouldn't have changed the process.
Thinking isnt knowing.

Anyway you made your point, I made mine, we leave it at that. Lets just hope I never get the opportunity to say: I told ya so!
Amen to that! ;-)
2011-03-15 13:47:53
It was just an expression ... I can't imagine they wouldn't have changed the process.

How could you change the basic process once the power plant is built? That's not possible.
2011-03-15 13:54:51
Safety precautions ...
If you stand for it, you should also accept that the radioactive atomic wastes be deposed in Belgium, don't you?
2011-03-15 13:58:55
Yeah it starts looking like a beautifull place for exactly that:) 10 or 20 thousand years shouldnt make a difference aye:)