Quote:
Originally Posted by w14
I'm sorry, I really don't understand your thinking. In the case that nuclear was to be the basis for a global solution to the problem of CO2 emissions, then uranium supply would be guaranteed through international treaty. End of story.
|
International treay??? Like the oil supply?
You do realise that there is an international treaty that all Oil producers conform to that states that oil price is negotiated on a ten year cycle. That doesn't seem to be working does it? The current price that the U.K. buys its unrefined oil for was negotiated 2 years ago.
Quote:
|
I mean that it can be handled safely and stored.
|
If that REALLY is the case then why is there always a problem dealing with the waste. There is one ship, currently on its way back to Japan, that is carrying 7 year old (at least) nuclear waste that is being prevented from docking anywhere.
Quote:
|
Neither does producing concentrated CO2, as in the case of carbon capture.
|
With renewable fuel sources you do not need carbon capture.
Quote:
|
So shut the corporation down and start again.
|
What and waste £billions on that one?
Quote:
|
Why not? They seem to be doing that quite successfully with Northern Rock.
|
A slightly different problem, Northern Rock is about to be swallowed up by the Bank of England - another independent corporation.
Quote:
|
You've heard of the conservation of energy? I'm quite certain that if we stop trying to reinvent primitive technologies that we stopped using generations ago, and instead focussed on fusion research, we'd solve that problem within a generations or two. In the meantime, fission can provide more energy than we could possibly use.
|
I agree that Fusion is the solution we should be spending more on developing. However wind power and wave/hydro power are tried and tested and are being used to full power several countries today. With this technology available to us we should not continue to use the technologies that are creating the problems we are trying to solve.