Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

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)

It's just not true. But please, feel free to try to find the studies prooving your claim.

If you fail, you can refresh you knowledge here or here instead. Those are the first two hits on a google-search for "co2 emmisions power sources".

You didn't answer my question what you gain by this posts in this topic, this manipulating of people, and even lying because you have done research so I'm 10000% sure you're leaving info out of it that doesn't fit your story.

And with a name and teamname like yours everyone should understand not to trust you 1 little bit, not objective at all and absolutely the worst to listen to if someone wants info. Actually, you're the last they should listen to if they want to hear most of the truth.

NEVER trust the 1 that is selling you something controversial over the 1 that's warning you for it. The warnings are real and told for decades, now see Japan. You're the untrusted 1 in this story, selling the shit as save, clean and renewable even knowing you are lying.
(edited)

I won't justify your BS with an answer other than this.

Out of touch. Out of reach. Out of mind.

Well, I hope that nuclear power plants will shut down and you have to see it's results. Tidal energy isn't usable everywhere; wind mills aren't usable everywhere; hydro plants aren't usable everywhere etc. Currently that source of energy is not replaceable; and if you want to shut it down completely you hve to cut down energy consumption too. it wasn't a joke that maybe you could only have electricity for 12 hours a day without the nuclear plants.

I think you will be amazed if you start looking for what already exists and you will find out much more is possible if the right investments are done :)

Ofcourse you can't shut down all nuclear powerstations right now, but not start building new ones would be a good start, and in the future all others can be replaced by clean, renewable energy sources. We live on a large battery, from all sides we see energy, would be stupid not to use it but keep on digging and burn resources ...

EDIT: you do realize that most major cities are build near the ocean or else near large rivers? And the whole world now knows the power of water as we seen the tsunamis. Reliable energy from the oceans and tidal is a very realistic option, 24 hours a day :)

(edited)

Your posts are just a classic example of how good intentions are not nearly enough to accomplish anything and can even make things worse. There is not a person here who wouldn't want more renewable sources used in energy production. Disregarding reality as you do can only make that happening more difficult. Accusing people of being dishonest for absolutely no reason can even more. People generally want to do things better. We don't need agitators like you for motivation.

Yeah. Hungary doesn't have any quick river, big waterfall or sea. Danube is big but slow, it's not good for a power plant; and that's right for the Tisza too. I think you can say that for most of the Asian countries too.

What I'm saying is that there isn't enough reliable power source yet to close nuclear plants.

What I'm saying is that there isn't enough reliable power source yet to close nuclear plants.

I agree on that :)

²

Defenite yes for me ...

good comment Sasha76 +1

According to the current results of the survey:

Do you want a Nuclear power plant in your Country?
Yes

50% (196)
No

44% (173)
I don't know

7% (26)

I am very curious about the fact that these two fractions "yes" and "no" are so close to each other. I expected the "no" people to be the minority.

edit: a mistake. Oh my. A mistake. I' m taking my exams in English just in a few days LOL ;] need to check everything a hundred times

(edited)

a part of fukushima's costs

who will pay? (I have a suspect..)

TEPCO?

For the business year that ended March 31, the company, commonly known as Tepco, posted a 1.25 trillion yen ($15 billion) net loss after accounting for 1 trillion yen to scrap reactors at the Fukushima complex and write off tax assets.

Dude, read what you post, TEPCO has a 15 billion net loss, guess why.

I read this :

The disaster has triggered a drop of more than 80 percent in Tokyo Electric's share price and forced the company to seek government aid as it faces compensation liabilities that some analysts say could top $100 billion.

100 BILLION DOLLARS???
call you ensurance, LOL!

who'll pay? (and it will be enough for every damage caused?)

I have a suspect..
the citizens will pay