OT Nuclear power

Is that so?

formatting link

Reply to
harry
Loading thread data ...

Ah. This fellow. Seems to be pretty self serving.

Reply to
harry

Reply to
harry

See previous link. It's for everything. Until the price goes up some more of course..

Reply to
harry

Is it really that difficult for you to understand the difference between the legacy of a nuclear programme that was primarily aimed at developing weapons and future nuclear power, where the cost of decommissioning is already factored into the costs?

Doesn't the fact that nobody here agrees with you ever make you doubt?

Colin Bignell

Reply to
Nightjar

I gave him the clue in nice easy words but it still whooshed him. Thick as shit in the neck of a bottle, our harry.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Is it really that difficult for you to understand that all "nuclear activity" produces waste? And that it is all in temporary containment because successive governments are/have been unwilling to shoulder the costs/ political damage involved in a permanent solution? And that any solution will involve vast cost and may fail. (As have some attempts elsewhere).

formatting link
rtain_sites

And finally there's whinging bastards here don't even want a wind turbine. Any repository should be put under their house. Or their electricity cut off.

If the problem was a s simple as some simple minded people here think, it would not be an issue and would have been dealt with years ago. Instead it has been repeatedly booted into the long grass.

Reply to
harry

You could remove the word nuclear from that and still be accurate. However, you have avoided the question. Can you not see the difference between decommissioning a nuclear programme that was rushed through to meet a deadline to explode an H-Bomb, with little concern about safety and none about decommissioning, and a new one where the decommissioning is already factored into the costs, even before it is built?

Cost, rather than any political damage. Storage is cheap compared to a consumer reactor.

Cost that, like decommissioning, is already factored in before the new plant is built.

formatting link

No system is aver 100% safe, but the nuclear industry, particularly in Britain, is significantly safer than any other.

If I lived in a geologically suitable area, it wouldn't worry me. Unlike you, I am not unreasonably afraid of radiation. After all, I am sitting here emitting around 2,000 gamma rays a second.

As I keep pointing out, it is only an issue to you. As I asked before, doesn't the fact that nobody here agrees with you ever make you doubt?

Colin Bignell

Reply to
Nightjar

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.