Undeclared final war

Originally posted by Zaitsev . Solar and wind energy ARE NOT VIABLE. Just the land costs to build them are enormous, and they don't even produce enough energy to pay for their own construction.

Edited by Dawn - 21-Feb-2007 at 23:51

I would have a lot more confidence in Nuclear power if they weren't built in places like Southern USA at the gulf of Mexico or in California along the San Andreas faultline. Thats just common sense!

So you don't believe that if every country across the world started building nuclear plants en masse that the risks of a disaster wouldn't increase, even if the chances of a meltdown are ridiculously low (Lets just say for arguments sake, 0.03% or something like that) Take into account that at present nations such as North Korea have nuclear power stations. And its a bit of a no brainer that when Kim Jon Il dies something seriously mad will happen over there. Who is going to take control of the electricity supply without a central administration for example? The variables and risks associated with nuclear power are too great. FFS, nuclear plants have been built on fault lines, showing the stupidity of some of the designers. I simply don't trust some of these people to build plants which have the ability to decide the fate of certain parts of this planet.  (And you must accept that if god forbid anything happens in Sellafield, Ireland is f**ked)

Well the only reason that these 'sun-states' aren't developing the CSP infrastructure as we speak is because they are short sighted; the fossil fuel industry is making them far too much money at the moment. Wait a few more years down the line when oil production will peak (i think i read somewhere that that is to be in 2008) and we should see a lot more enthusiasm for solar coming from these countries. Western democracies have a responsability to invest in these technologies now, or at least acknowledge their worth. Its no secret that many western countries, particularly Britain, seem to have an agenda to build more nuclear plants no matter what.

 Control measures limit industrial and agricultural activities reducing the range of products the area was able to export. This would have lead to a fall in local incomes. Furthermore reduced investment occurs due to a perception of an unsafe �lifestyle� within affected areas.

�        Following the accident 116,000 people had to be evacuated and between 1990 and 1995 an additional 210,000 people were resettled.  This created a need to build a new town named Slavutich for the personnel of the Chernobyl power plant.

�        Villages had to be decontaminated and major work had to be carried out on infrastructure for example water and gas. The closure of Reactor 4 and the �freeze� on construction of new reactors reduced the availability of electricity supplies.

�        Demographic indications in 'contaminated' areas suggest that these areas are experiencing a decline as:

o       The birth rate has decreased

o       The work force has migrated from contaminated areas to uncontaminated areas thus in turn resulting in a shortage of labour and professional staff.

�        The effected areas suffered major disruption to normal life and economic activity in particular with regard to agriculture and forestry production.

�        $12.8 Billon of disruption occurred to the Soviet Economy.

�        A �victim� mentality has occurred in the area due restrictions of activities making life difficult and unsettling.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Solar energy, as pointed out above, wind energy, earth-warmth systems, etc. There are plenty.   Congrats, Not only have you managed to completely and utterly miss my point, you also contradict yourself in other posts in your haste to talk yourself out of your mistakes. I could go further on this, but you wouldn't get it anyway, and I have far better things to spend my time on than you.

Cop out.

Regardless, I have already said "earth-warmth" systems are useful. However these systems can only be used in some areas of the world. The majority are not suitable. Solar and wind energy ARE NOT VIABLE. Just the land costs to build them are enormous, and they don't even produce enough energy to pay for their own construction.

Solar energy, as pointed out above, wind energy, earth-warmth systems, etc. There are plenty.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 20-Feb-2007 at 08:45

Originally posted by Aelfgifu I'm also noticing a trend. You seem to be suffering from a chronic short-sightedness, constantly focused on short term satisfaction with little or no care for any future effects at all. If we would all follow your course, we will have poisioned our world into a uninhabitable dead rock within a couple of decades.   Fire, or pretty much any other source of energy including fossile fuel, water, wind and solar energy, does in absolutely no way have the possibility of making a significant portion of the earth uninhabitable for several centuries. Nuclear power does. Plenty of reason to go for any alternative what ever it is.   Nuclear power is not safe, it is not environmentally friendly, and although the price may be low the cost is higher than we can afford.   If we would build more nuclear power stations, the chances it will go wrong somewhere increases. Simple maths. The fact that it already did go wrong in an American nuclear power plant proves that money, safety measures, regular maintenance and such does nothing to excude possible risks. If it can go wrong in America, it can go a lot worse in poor countries. The USSR won't have been the only country not to take safety and maintenance too seriously. Encouraging the building of Nuclear power plants is asking for more trouble.

Wow, you really have been affected by the propaganda. Nuclear waste, properly disposed of, does not make any area of the Earth uninhabitable. You accuse me of being short-sighted, when you just said that fossil fuels don't make areas uninhabitable. If we're not careful they'll make the whole Earth uninhabitable.

Nuclear Power IS much safer than just about any power source around. Do you know how many people have died from coal mining? In accidents at coal plants? Alot more than died in Chernobyl and all Uranium mining combined. Thousands of people have died in dam construction around the world.

Nuclear Power is also alot more environmentally friendly than coal, or oil or even gas power. In many ways its also alot more environmentally friendly than hydro-electric, which disrupts the eco-system and water cycle significantly. The amount of waste produced by a nuclear reactor is miniscule when compared to that of a coal power plant, and oil is even worse.

The One Mile Island incident is damn good proof that modern nuclear power is safe. The incompetent workers did EVERYTHING wrong, and the system itself still easily averted disaster. If you can come up with a practical alternative which won't polute the atmosphere beyond breathability, please tell me.

I am aware power has been exported for some time, but this is a highly inefficient process with much signal loss. In addition, the problem of "dirty power" occurs, which can cause problems in alot of appliances, especially computers.

Looking at that "alertnative energy" diagram I would say that nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly option.

Originally posted by Zaitsev Small issue - you can fly dozens of planes into a nuclear plant and it won't do a darn thing. Having read up on CSP I still don't believe it is feasible until more research has been done to make it more efficient. The solar panel technology itself is not up to scratch. It is also, as you said, a dream to think of a multi-continent power grid in this political climate. Alot of people have also ignored the fact that by the time the power from Norway gets to France, let alone America or Australia, it will be just about useless.

Edited by Seko - 19-Feb-2007 at 14:47