Attention Europeans:

Apr 26, 2006 11:43

If you share my view of the threat posed by nuclear power, and with one eye cast back at Chernobyl, then I suggest you have a look at the following, as it may be of interest to you ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 11

swiftblade April 26 2006, 12:22:05 UTC
Your alternative would be?

Reply

krieglust April 26 2006, 12:43:51 UTC
I'm not an expert, but there are plenty of people who are, and who really need the above mentioned fundng to develop the next method of energy production, whatever it may be. I do know, however, that I have no desire to end up dead or dying slowly from multiple cancers as a result of an accident at somewhere like Sellafield. The reality is, should such an accident occur, then that's exactly what would happen as it stands. And, as stated above, we still haven't resolved how to dispose of the after products of nuclear power generation, so not only do we have the mother of all a-bombs in the shape of the power plant, but we also have a watse problem that is both exoensive and destructive. Not my definition of an ideal solution.

Reply

swiftblade April 26 2006, 14:48:03 UTC
Still better than any current alternative imho...

Reply

brilyn April 26 2006, 14:03:05 UTC
How about:

Solar
Wind
Tidal

Ireland does not (and never will) have fission plants. More and more of our power is being shifted over to the above three (wind power being currently focused on, as I understand it).

If goverments got their butts in gear, there are two locations on earth that receive a *solid* 6 month block of sunshine every year, and are ripe for solar power.

Additionally, setting up banks of solar cells in orbit is also viable.

The main issues? The Setting up costs. Somehow, a fission plant is cheap, but banks of solar cells aren't.

(probably from the resales of the plutonium you get out of the "reprocessing plants". Then again, if you have an accident, you can just rename the plant. Cf. Windscale Sellafield)

Reply


siryel April 26 2006, 13:32:34 UTC
My bro has modified a car engine by adding an extra tube that recycle exhaust gas and create more fuel.

The process is simple, it's just frowned upon by the authorities (and illegal to put on a car, at least in France) who are making as much money as they can with the current fuels, until they actually can't anymore and have to launch alternative fuels use. They milk the cow (as in us) for all it's got.

The technologies are there, they are just not advertised because the others are still more profitable for the governments

Reply


brilyn April 26 2006, 13:58:00 UTC
Internet petitions aren't good.

Additionally, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Fusion (good) and Fission (bad).

Reply


sheyna April 26 2006, 20:10:59 UTC
Nuclear power has gotten a bad press from scare-mongerers and the like. It's not as bad as people make out. (She says, having done a fair amount of investigation and had two visits to Nuclear Power Stations to back her up ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up