Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

Many people generaly do care ,so it is a relevant argument.

Anyway I would pay more too for clean energy.

Yet again I knwo that costs of 20000 years of taking care of nuclear waste are not included in any study....

So yes we all are paying in some way...

definitelly yes, there is no other choice, real choice, i am not talking about fairy-tales like make some amount of electricity by solar,water or wind power and others. maybe cold fussion can be better.... :)

who of you have familly or are playing bills? tell me if you are voting no if your bill for monthly electricity is not 55e but 180e :):) ?????

you pay 55E because you don't pay externalities..

have you payed for Mexican Gulf oil disaster?
But you use a car..


edit:
i am not talking about fairy-tales
LOL...
(edited)

have you payed for Mexican Gulf oil disaster?

Of course not, why should I?

Is it a damage done in producing petroleum? yes
the damage must be considerated a cost of production? sure
The price of selling must be comprensive of the cost of production? obviously..

so..

If you would keep to the facts we could talk, but you don't . Not gonna waste my time.

the damage must be considerated a cost of production? sure
The price of selling must be comprensive of the cost of production? obviously..

Not a cost of production. A large error of one company that should not be included in the price. BP is responsible, I don't see why other oil companies should raise their prise.

we can load out/ trash all nuclear waste to space at the future... so what problem you have with nuclear waste ???

I am wonder if chiefs of that companies are at the jail (i think no :-( )...somebody have always responsibility.. I suppose that the ship can have problems, maybe old and somebody allow it to travel through ocean... I dont know what was the real reason, but I know that companies can just insure old oil ship and then they shoudnt care.... :-(((

I think you're kidding me..

Do you pay the price of any petroleum ship washed with sea water (everyone, always.. )?
do you pay for any ship full of oil that made a disaster in this wordl?
no.

you pay a PART of the cost, because who sell it to you make pay the rest to SOMEONE ELSE!!!

So you can easily conclude that petroleum or nuclear energy is cheaper..
thanks a lot. but if you start paiyng EVERY cost..
It would be really interesting..

this is not problem of environment and powerplants ..this is problem of laws and what government of every country allow, what kind of inspections and control systems they have...

so this is not about theme in this topic which is nuclear plant yes or no ...

efficiency of the processes through which we can extract energy from renewable sources is constantly raising. one of the arguments used in italy against PV panels once was that covering the entire country with them still we couldn't get the energy we needed. now that's not true anymore. PV panels have upgraded their efficiency from 11% to 16% in average in only three years. the on-field exploitation of renewable energy brings to process upgrades and cheaper prices for everyone.
about nuclear power--- I'm an electrical engineer and I'm not contrary by principle. I've studied the problem of the economical optimum mix of energetic sources, and I know that nuclear power should be a part of it (in Italy, three years ago, the best mix would have considered a quote of 17% produced with nuclear plants). but, even on the economical side, nuclear is not THE solution, but just A PART of the solution.
in Italy we have renounced to produce with nuclear power right after Chernobyl. our old nuclear plants have been dismissed--- well, I'd better say "put into safeness". to realize new plants we'd need at least 10 years and about 4.500,00M€ for each plant. that's just too much, and one of the main reasons I'm against the new nuclear program by the goverment.
but there is another thing no-one ever talks about. the incidence of cancer, leukemia and other diseases in the areas around nuclear plants, for hundreds of kms, that's unbelieveably high despite their "absolute safeness" and still no corporate manager ever comes out explaining why.

Wales has one already

efficiency of the processes through which we can extract energy from renewable sources is constantly raising.
I agree. Country should give more benefits for such a kind of powerplants and also better science for it...but now we must have nuclear PP, rather than old coal, oil and others plants!! You can not make big jump to clean energy, so I agree if you want make it step by step and we are doing this. Nuclear energy and closing down old powerplants are that steps !


local consequences which about are you typing are not world problem...yes it is bad, but it is not wide-world problem so this argument is "hard" to accept.


So I agree with you for pro-clean PP, for better world, but it must be doing slowly, there is not possible big jump....and closing old coal, oil or old nuclear PP are that steps. Cars are now been producing like hybrid or solar that are next steps. If big countries are not blocking new technology because oil business they like more, we can have long time already clean plant !!

no big jump
just slowly drawing

but the solar cells are dangerous for the environmnet, and they aren't recyclable.

I have some problem to believe that recycle of solar cells are more dangerous for the environment than the nuclear plant.