No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more of them
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
OT Good News
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of what we have now. Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored. It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.
formatting link
doesn't like this to be mentioned.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
So does the NHS When did you last use the channel tunnel? When did you last use electricity? When did you last see a doctor?
It only costs because people are so scared of it.
Its a high price to pay for being ignorant as pigshit.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Oh so TurNiP knows better than everyone else then? That puts you thicker than pigshit.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
IN this case, yes.
No. It doesn't harry.