Was that sarcasm or surrealism?
Using electricity for space heating is very cost ineffective but people still do it.
And the costs of generating chemical fuels from electricity are not likely to remain fixed for all time at present-day levels.
Such as aircraft ...
Indeed . Meanwhile back here on planet Earth the big issue is global warming, not the heat death of the universe.
brdeeing using fertile raher than fissile material gives you acees to two orders of magnirturde more energy out of the same tonne of fertile/fislei mixsture of materials.
Burn up rates on stock U235/U238 reactors are pathetic. I menas there's less than 5% U235 and only a fraction of THAT gets burnt, and very little U238 ends up as plutonium.
But the energy density is so large and uranium so cheap, theres' no incentive yet to do more.
Which is why prediuctions of running out of uranium, prediucated on the assumptions that
- we wont ever find any more
- we wont expoloit harder to extrct sources
- we wont switch to breeder technology
are just green spin lies.
What costs isnt the actual fuel raw materials, Nucler energy is not price sensitive to the fuel raw materails at all. Its the cost of the reactor, the cost of the money, the cost of getting permission, approval, planning, constructing, operating , manufactiring the fuel and disposing of the waste IN A MASSIVELY REGULATED way, way beyond even aerospace or semicinductor fab type controlled environments, in te cointext of hostility from established interests who will spread lies and scare stories interminably.
All you have to do to stop nuclear power, is for example, as clegg did, say that each reactor will have to take outa £500bn insurance policy 'in case something goes wrong' and make sure that the regulatins are such that if something does, its ginna cost at least that much to remove every last atom of caesium 137 from an area the size of nick cleggs ego.
Sorry to disappoint you, but all avenues have been explored, and found more wantng than nuclear/coal/gas.
Wihout the massive subsidies and total waste of mioney being poured into reneqables, they would have been abandoned befire they started as well.
Realistically right now the ONLY viable alternatives to fossil are nuclear.
When you examine the parameters, we need high energy density stored sources that are safe to store. Tht use proven technology to exploit.
Steam turbines and nuclear boilers may seem old fashined, but not as old fashioned as windmills. Solar is a bit better, but withut storage,m its almost completely pointless. It cant do the job alone.
After all what is a photocell? a away of capturing energy from a nuclear reactor. Its just another 'boiler' in that context. And te ractor is miles away, often not very usable.
I disagree. Mass genocide is another alternative, and may be more palatable than nuclear to some.
It is now possible to replace a bunch of 630 liars in a closed room obeying archaic mummery whilst not really deciding policy with an online debating forum making it possible for all men to take the blame for the ensuing anarchy.
Socialism. Communism. The right to strike. Foxhunting. Immigration. Working for a living. Import controls. Banking controls. The Royal Navy. Public ho uses. British engineering. The National Health. Apprenticeships. Responsibi lity for safety at work. Weather forecasts.
I think that pretty much describes Britain then and now.
Are you claiming that the WNA's own facts and figures are lies?
Which of course you never do? You have never said, for example that:
- The leak at Fukushima was contained at a time it was actually getting worse?
- The Japanese were utterly reliant on nuclear power, when in fact they now have hardly any of it?
- Electricity from new nuclear need never be more than 10p unit, when in fact that is the likely MINIMUM price?
- Anti-AGW scientists are pushed from their jobs, when the very first person to lose his over AGW was the then Chairman of the IPCC?
- David Bellamy was removed from our screens because he wrote an anti-AGW article for New Scientist, whereas the actual truth was the article was knowingly or unknowingly fraudulent, in that it was based on information from a website run by an obvious nutter who was an architect rather than a scientist, and additionally the article had not even been properly proof-read, and contained an absurd numerical typo?
- The EU is to blame for all the corruption in the UK, and then gone on to describe a situation where the corruption took place here in the UK among people who have no direct connection with the EU?
- That a report about the EU banning dangerous products showed a pro-German bias, when in fact most of the products banned were from China and of the remainder two were actually from Germany? - You have never tried to imply that man is having f*k all effect on the climate, when the majority of scientist are agreed to the contrary?
Etc, etc.
puking
Well, well, well. To me that sounds rather like: "The science is settled!"
Most of these issues have not "vanished".
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.