Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplifter
Tell me something I don't know.
The only reason the nuclear industry is pushing for more nuclear power stations is beacuse you can trade the fuel. In renewable energy reactors, wind, hydro, tidal power sources are all free, which means no market.
You could be correct on the amount of nuclear waste that is generated, however you fail to mention that it will take 20,000 years to become stable. You also fail to mention the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from producing the enriched fuel required.
Your justification for making more money in view of trying to do something to mitigate the problem of climate change, shows exactly where your values are.
Well I hope you end up being the person in the graveyard.
|
What's free about wind, and tidal? They don't work! They can't provide the necessary energy to power a nation, never mind a planet, particularly if you want to convert road transport to some form of electrical/hydrogen based power. The engineering development needed to get them to that point is many years off. You're right about hydro - at least gravity doesn't stop in the summer.
How much CO2 is produced by the world today? How much CO2 would be produced to create the uranium if we were to go totally nuclear? Which is better? Have you heard of fast breeder reactors, by the way?
20000 years? Where did you get that from? It is stable as soon as it if vitrified. 50 years.
As for your final point, wise up. Al Gore's companies are not set up to invest in anything to solve the climate change "problem." He has set himself up with some HEDGE FUNDS. I have worked for enough hedge funds to know where their interests lie. His companies are there to trade derivative, financially engineered products. Another bubble. If Al Gore was investing in scientific research, or engineering companies, then I would applaud him. But he's not. Just another set of financial instruments to scam the world with. And you question my values?