Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')
From: C (cc-news_at_hermes.mirlex.com)
Date: 11/09/04
- Next message: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: ' [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- In reply to: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Next in thread: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Reply: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Reply: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:25:35 GMT
Beth wrote:
>Rene wrote:
>>Beth wrote:
>>>C wrote:
>>>>Rene wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Here, in Europe, most of our "Nature defenders" fellows
>>>>>("Greens") are strongly against nuclear Energy. IMHO,
>>>>>they should, all the contrary be 100% in _favour_ of it.
>>>>>This is, up to now, the only Energy source, without
>>>>>any real pollution, that can be done at very low cost.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>Without pollution? Ummm, nuclear waste, anyone?
>
> Please, can this point not be avoided as this was my main point and I
> wanted to hear the reply to it...
>
> You stated "without any real pollution", to which C replied: "yes"...
Sorry, I do tend to go for the short answer. I was refering
to the fact that nuclear fission results in _far_ less pollution
than other commonly used forms of centralised power generation.
Yes, there is the problem with nuclear waste, that is not difficult
to solve -- High level waste can be stored/burried in disused
mines or reprocessed. I would advocate encasing it in glass first
to prevent it from leaking into the ground water.
As for fears over the transport of nuclear waste, this is a minor
issue. The wagons used only carry a few pounds of waste each and
are designed to withstand a crash of over 100mph without the
container loosing integraty. Transport of materials like chlorine
on the roads pose a much greater risk.
By the way, nuclear fusion cannot be used to produce fuel for
fission. Both fission and fusion extract energy via the strong
nuclear force, exploiting the fact that fusing light elements
(H2, H3) or fissioning heavy elements (U235/U238) results in
materials which require less force to hold the nucleus together,
the remaining force is released as heat which is then used
(indirectly) to drive turbines as in conventional power stations.
But nuclear energy is indeed a short term solution, you are
correct that photovoltaics are a better solution, especially as
it virtually eliminates inefficiencies and losses incured in
transmission. However such a system costs >£300 ($500) per solar
panel for a ~150W panel, in addition power regulation and storage
(battries) are needed. This initial outlay is beyond the means
of most people. Government subsurdies could help, but they are
unlikly to be forthcomming, due to lobbying from the energy
industry.
C
2004-11-9
- Next message: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: ' [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- In reply to: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Next in thread: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Reply: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Reply: Beth: "Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|