Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
Other ways like solar energy , etcetera
are very great and we have to try to get as much energy of systems like this.
if it would be possible to give every person energy it would be great
but that isn't possible it's way to expensive and with the economic crisis in the world now just not possible.
are very great and we have to try to get as much energy of systems like this.
if it would be possible to give every person energy it would be great
but that isn't possible it's way to expensive and with the economic crisis in the world now just not possible.
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 :):) ?????
the only fairy-tales i know are told by the investors in nuclear plants. Dangerous, expensive, long-term benefits if there were some, italy for instance should buy the fuel abroad, high dismantling costs, difficulty in locating the radioactive material. By the way, dealing with dirty, dangerous and hazardous waste is one of the preferred jobs by Mafia and other criminal clans.
On the other hand, if in the seventies Italy chose the renewable option, now probably should be leader in Europe. It's very sad that nuclear investors treat any critical approach as a ridicolous story-teller, a very rough strategy that presumes on the disinformation of the audience.
Finally, I have a family that i hope to be alive and kicking forever, i'll eventually pay the power a little more for that, i will never give up safety and health for a lower rate. Expecially when nuclear power is not.
(edited)
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 :):) ?????
the only fairy-tales i know are told by the investors in nuclear plants. Dangerous, expensive, long-term benefits if there were some, italy for instance should buy the fuel abroad, high dismantling costs, difficulty in locating the radioactive material. By the way, dealing with dirty, dangerous and hazardous waste is one of the preferred jobs by Mafia and other criminal clans.
On the other hand, if in the seventies Italy chose the renewable option, now probably should be leader in Europe. It's very sad that nuclear investors treat any critical approach as a ridicolous story-teller, a very rough strategy that presumes on the disinformation of the audience.
Finally, I have a family that i hope to be alive and kicking forever, i'll eventually pay the power a little more for that, i will never give up safety and health for a lower rate. Expecially when nuclear power is not.
(edited)
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.
punx you are always reliable regardless of the language you write. :)
Just to point out, we can' forget that nuclear power plants belong to big companies, as well as the fuel. Renewable sources belong to the users, as well as the plants most of the cases. Not a negligible difference i think.
punx you are always reliable regardless of the language you write. :)
Just to point out, we can' forget that nuclear power plants belong to big companies, as well as the fuel. Renewable sources belong to the users, as well as the plants most of the cases. Not a negligible difference i think.
Indeed. However, what happened in Japan will never happen in for instance the Low Countries. Here, earth quakes are very, very rare. Earth quakes of the scale of the one in Japan never happen here. So yes, in our region, nuclear power is rather safe.
Unfortunatly half of the Netherlands is build meters below sealevel, including 1 of our 2 nuclear powerstations ... Can you garanty nothing will happen to our dunes and the sealevels? ;)
Unfortunatly half of the Netherlands is build meters below sealevel, including 1 of our 2 nuclear powerstations ... Can you garanty nothing will happen to our dunes and the sealevels? ;)
one side of problem is as I called it "fairy - tales"... ok, i can correct this "not possible in real life for now"... for example, do you know man with name TESLA ? He and other scientists made inventions about pure energy, or very sophisticated energy on base of electricity, water or other .... long time ago !
But more than one century we are not able to use such nice types of energy. Why ? Rich man, secret interests, money, profit and so.... if oil has big economy value now, somebody have to for all costs run out all storage of this resource and after that with big profit and so.. "they" can make nice presentation about new energy for low costs....
or if you have huge starting costs for building such a big amount of small powerplants based on water or wind or solar energy and on the other hand relatively cheap nuclear power-plants, world will always choose that what has bigger economy efficiency.
So my point of view is, that nice pure types of energy which are not "allowed" for now are not real for mass production. But I like them more of course ! Then we have old dirty types like coal or oil powerplants and much more cleaner nuclear energy so I will rather choose nuclear energy than coal or oil !!!!
If most of our cars will be able to move for electric energy and no oil we will need much more electricity. And I dont think that such a huge amount of energy the world of nowadays is able to produce without nuclear energy.
But of course, I dont doubt, that there are inventions which can make this real, they are just "forbidden" for this time, time when oil has its nice big value :-(.
But if you want tell us stop using nuclear energy and use rather that other small water, wind or solar powerplants, I can tell you that this is just fairy tale. At the future we will stop using nuclear energy maybe... but not now.
But more than one century we are not able to use such nice types of energy. Why ? Rich man, secret interests, money, profit and so.... if oil has big economy value now, somebody have to for all costs run out all storage of this resource and after that with big profit and so.. "they" can make nice presentation about new energy for low costs....
or if you have huge starting costs for building such a big amount of small powerplants based on water or wind or solar energy and on the other hand relatively cheap nuclear power-plants, world will always choose that what has bigger economy efficiency.
So my point of view is, that nice pure types of energy which are not "allowed" for now are not real for mass production. But I like them more of course ! Then we have old dirty types like coal or oil powerplants and much more cleaner nuclear energy so I will rather choose nuclear energy than coal or oil !!!!
If most of our cars will be able to move for electric energy and no oil we will need much more electricity. And I dont think that such a huge amount of energy the world of nowadays is able to produce without nuclear energy.
But of course, I dont doubt, that there are inventions which can make this real, they are just "forbidden" for this time, time when oil has its nice big value :-(.
But if you want tell us stop using nuclear energy and use rather that other small water, wind or solar powerplants, I can tell you that this is just fairy tale. At the future we will stop using nuclear energy maybe... but not now.
EU is going to make new hard tests for nuclear PP, so we should not be worried about it :-DD
Yeh, just as not be worried as in Japan you mean? Safety systems that protect nuclear stations when disasters occur ... yeh right.
Every new test is based on last catastrophe... so newer test must be better :-)
ok i am not very serious now..good night :-)
ok i am not very serious now..good night :-)
Unfortunatly half of the Netherlands is build meters below sealevel, including 1 of our 2 nuclear powerstations ... Can you garanty nothing will happen to our dunes and the sealevels? ;)
First of all, if it only affects the Dutchies, that's not a real big problem :p
No, seriously: if your dunes are strong enough - which I believe they are - then yes.
First of all, if it only affects the Dutchies, that's not a real big problem :p
No, seriously: if your dunes are strong enough - which I believe they are - then yes.
Every new test is based on last catastrophe... so newer test must be better :-)
ok i am not very serious now..good night :-)
While we are kidding millions of people are depending on the strength of a containment in a power plant. Just wonder if this is serious.
ok i am not very serious now..good night :-)
While we are kidding millions of people are depending on the strength of a containment in a power plant. Just wonder if this is serious.
The 'if' is the problem with something like nuclear powerstations ;)
And millions are depending on the oil. This can't be serious.
I really like how some people call nuclaer electricity cheap. They convieniently forget about the disposal and storage costs of many thousands of years which will have to be payed by all of us in the end. They dont have the faintest idea about what they are talking and just repeat the crap right of the mouths of the nuclear lobby.
Sad, but thats some part of humanity.
Sad, but thats some part of humanity.
Read this for a scientific view of the Japanese reactor issue, instead of relying on sensationalist media sources.
Nuclear energy is a divisive topic, and frankly the reactions to it are often the same as those from people who are against vaccination: emotional knee-jerk responses due to a lack of reliable information, and an insistence on not properly educating oneself about the issue.
Nuclear energy is a divisive topic, and frankly the reactions to it are often the same as those from people who are against vaccination: emotional knee-jerk responses due to a lack of reliable information, and an insistence on not properly educating oneself about the issue.