Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
It is, actually. It gives reason to believe, that both prosperity and clean technology on a large scale is possible.
Ok, if you believe so, you know what I think ..
No, I haven't read the Citibank analysis. I tend to put my trust in the real world - and the facts are, that huge investments are beeing made in nuclear power all around the world. Those investments wouldn't be made, if the investors didn't expect a solid return of their investment.
lol
One more of your comments who make clear for those with a brain what kind of person you are.
Thats actualy the thing I like about you, people who can think can see through your non existing logic of made up facts.
lol
One more of your comments who make clear for those with a brain what kind of person you are.
Thats actualy the thing I like about you, people who can think can see through your non existing logic of made up facts.
wou, just wow about your energy to talk about same thing so long time..... :-)
I have stop reading this couple of weeks ago, so I dont know if you make some new analyses now, but I suppose it is same :-D
(this is just spam, no intellectual idea :-d )
I have stop reading this couple of weeks ago, so I dont know if you make some new analyses now, but I suppose it is same :-D
(this is just spam, no intellectual idea :-d )
Yeah, by now it's just repeating and copy/pasting. Even the insults. :)
Okay, imagine that: no more nuclear power, but you can only use electricity for 12 hours a day - even in winter, because there is enpugh energy for that time :)
What is only 12 hours? It's not nuclear against 1 other solution but countless other solutions ...
Unfortunately most of those solutions, at least the realistic ones, are fossil fuelled.
It's either renewables + fossils or renewables + nuclear. One leads to climate change - the other does not.
History has prooven, that renewables only are only a dream. At least for many, many years to come. And we simply cannot wait for the brilliant (= cheap + practical + plentyful) renewable solutions to be invented.
(edited)
It's either renewables + fossils or renewables + nuclear. One leads to climate change - the other does not.
History has prooven, that renewables only are only a dream. At least for many, many years to come. And we simply cannot wait for the brilliant (= cheap + practical + plentyful) renewable solutions to be invented.
(edited)
Here you go again ... 'History has prooven' ??? We just started with renewable energy and you say history? You're bending the truth and by making it black and white your trying to manipulate people. You make the truth fit to yours, and not accepting anything else as your truth, even the links you are willing to read has to fit your truth or you don't read them ... I wonder what your goal is in this topic ....
EDIT:
geothermal energy, not just 12 hours;
tidal energy, not just 12 hours;
solar energy, not just 12 hours;
wind energy, not just 12 hours;
hydro energy, not just 12 hours (ok, not complete 'green', but at least really no waste)
etc etc
And not only a few windmills or solarcells but large energy farms with the newest technologies. But also cities has to change, solarpanelroofs in stead of roof tiles, windmills made for city-use etc.
(edited)
EDIT:
geothermal energy, not just 12 hours;
tidal energy, not just 12 hours;
solar energy, not just 12 hours;
wind energy, not just 12 hours;
hydro energy, not just 12 hours (ok, not complete 'green', but at least really no waste)
etc etc
And not only a few windmills or solarcells but large energy farms with the newest technologies. But also cities has to change, solarpanelroofs in stead of roof tiles, windmills made for city-use etc.
(edited)
History has prooven, that renewables only are only a dream.
Actually it's the opposite. Renewables are in use much longer in the history of mankind than fossil or even nuclear energy.
It all started by making fire from wood. Then Wind mills were invented at around 1750 BC and water mills were used at around 300 BC.
Furthermore they are in use in a lot of places around the world, so it's not a dream but reality.
It's either renewables + fossils or renewables + nuclear. One leads to climate change - the other does not.
This ain't true as well. Nuclear plants have only slightly less environmental impact than cogeneration power plants.
Actually it's the opposite. Renewables are in use much longer in the history of mankind than fossil or even nuclear energy.
It all started by making fire from wood. Then Wind mills were invented at around 1750 BC and water mills were used at around 300 BC.
Furthermore they are in use in a lot of places around the world, so it's not a dream but reality.
It's either renewables + fossils or renewables + nuclear. One leads to climate change - the other does not.
This ain't true as well. Nuclear plants have only slightly less environmental impact than cogeneration power plants.
As long as the price and practicability for giant energy farm are as it is with today's technology, it's not going to happen. That's my point.
I admire that you put so much trust into mankind as to expect, that governments and people all over the world, including developing countries, will be prepared to pay the price. Remember it's only going to to get even more expensive, when you take the need to store the energy into consideration - which you would need to do somehow with some kind of gigantic battery, if solar and wind is ever going to replace fossils.
Is optimistic, but in my opinion also very naive.
I admire that you put so much trust into mankind as to expect, that governments and people all over the world, including developing countries, will be prepared to pay the price. Remember it's only going to to get even more expensive, when you take the need to store the energy into consideration - which you would need to do somehow with some kind of gigantic battery, if solar and wind is ever going to replace fossils.
Is optimistic, but in my opinion also very naive.
Come on, dude. First of all I don't need a history lesson. I've already pointed many, many pages back, that renewables are ancient technology - which is excatly why I don't expect major achievements to be made any time soon.
Second I live in Denmark, the country with the highest share of wind power in the world. So I'm quite aware of the technology's pros and cons. That's why I'm not beeing overtly optimistic about it.
Your last sentence is just an outright lie - or a major lack of understanding.
Second I live in Denmark, the country with the highest share of wind power in the world. So I'm quite aware of the technology's pros and cons. That's why I'm not beeing overtly optimistic about it.
Your last sentence is just an outright lie - or a major lack of understanding.
Then I don't get why you post such nonsense.
The last statement is not a lie. It results from studies that have examined the CO2 emissions (or CO2 equivalents) of power plants over their lifetime, including the generation of fuel (oil, gas, uranium,... ).
While this varies for nuclear plants (mainly from the way the uranium is won), it is still valid. Nuclear plants suffer from much less efficiency compared to cogeneration plants which make them (based on natural) gas a comparable way of energy production without the risks of nuclear waste and so on.
(edited)
The last statement is not a lie. It results from studies that have examined the CO2 emissions (or CO2 equivalents) of power plants over their lifetime, including the generation of fuel (oil, gas, uranium,... ).
While this varies for nuclear plants (mainly from the way the uranium is won), it is still valid. Nuclear plants suffer from much less efficiency compared to cogeneration plants which make them (based on natural) gas a comparable way of energy production without the risks of nuclear waste and so on.
(edited)